History

Selected Mark schemes and model answers
The Paris Peace Settlement.

Describe : 4 mark questions
In what ways was German Territory changed by the Treaty of Versailles?
The Treaty of Versailles made considerable changes to German territory both in Europe and overseas. In Europe
losses amounted to 13% of her total land surface and included: the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to France, Eupen &
Malmedy to Belgium, Northern Schleswig to Denmark. However the major changes occurred in the east with
large areas lost to Poland including West Prussia, Poznania parts of Silesia and the Polish Corridor. As a result
Germany was divided into two parts with East Prussia separated from the rest of Germany by the corridor.
Danzig and Memel were also lost. In addition Germany lost all of her colonial possessions in Africa and the
Pacific.
In what ways did the Treaty of Versailles weaken the German economy?
Level 1 General answer [12]
e.g. The financial impact was high. They lost important land. Unemployment rose. They could not meet
repayments.
Level 2 Describes ways [24]
(One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail.)
e.g. Germany had to accept full blame for starting the war and, therefore, had to pay reparations of 6,600
million. A reduction in the numbers in the armed forces increased unemployment. The Saar and Upper
Silesia were lost. These were important industrial areas.
Examiners comment
(a) This part of the question produced many good answers although a significant number of answers
were over long as candidates referred to all the terms of the Treaty of Versailles rather than
concentrating on those aspects that weakened the German economy. A significant number of answers
confused the Ruhr and Saar.
Examples of candidates answers
Example 1
The Treaty of Versailles had weakened Germanys economy due to the harsh rules imposed on them. Their navy
had to be reduced, they were not allowed to enter other countries or trade with them. Germany also had to pay
the cost of all the damages and destruction caused. Germanys investments, imports and exports were all
stopped. No income means less supply to satisfy their peoples needs leading to a weak unstable economy.
1
Level 1/1 mark

This example is very generalised and only hints at the impact on the Germany economy.
Example 2
The Treaty of Versailles had weakened Germany greatly. In 1920 when the treaty was put into full effect, the
German economy had fallen greatly. There was high unemployment and Germany had to pay reparations to the
French which caused hyperinflation. As the government was producing more German marks to pay reparations
and the coal workers, the value of the German mark went down. Germany had decreased its army. Because the
Kaiser was overthrown and the Weimar Republic brought in. Many people in Germany hated them and tried to
assassinate them.
Level 2/3 marks
In this response the candidate is beginning to describe how the German economy was affected although the
points made are limited and lack clarity.
Example 3
The Treaty of Versailles was a blow to the German economy. The Treaty stated that Germany had to pay
reparations of 6,000 billion. This plunged Germany into debt. The Treaty, signed in 1919, caused Germany to
lose 12.5% of its population, including all those people who lived in land that was taken away from Germany.
This included Silesia. This lost land included key industrial and mining sites, and the loss of this meant that
Germany had less goods and trade with. This caused more economic problems. Furthermore, the limitation of
the size of the army and navy meant that those who were employed in these organisations, as well as workers in
armament production, were now unemployed. This was a severe economic problem. In losing a proportion of its
population, there were less people to work (a reduced labour supply) and so less taxes were paid and the
government revenue fell. In addition, Germany lost its overseas colonies to the League which made them
mandates under British and French protection. This meant no income from abroad, leading to a reduction of
resources hence economic crises. In conclusion, the Treaty of Versailles had adverse impact on the German
economy.
Level 2/4 marks
Here the candidate has made a number of detailed points as to how the German economy was affected. Whilst
the response lacks accuracy in some of the factual information, this does not detract from full marks being
awarded.
This question should be easy to answer, as the technique is straightforward. The students must be specific in
their details. It is clear that level one is for general comments and that marks rise in accordance to the level of
detail included.
What military restrictions were imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles?
Level 1 General answer [1-2]
e.g. The size of the armed forces was reduced. The number of ships in the navy was reduced.
2
Level 2 Describes restrictions [2-4]

e.g. The army was limited to 100,000 men. There was to be no conscription. All soldiers had to be
volunteers. Germany was not allowed tanks, submarines or military aircraft. (Max 2 marks) (1 mark one/two;
two marks for three) The navy could only have six battleships. The Rhineland was demilitarised.
What were Germanys main territorial losses under the Treaty of Versailles?
Level 1 General Answer 1-2
e.g. They lost land they had won previously. They lost their colonies to Britain and France. They lost
industrial land. They lost 10% of their territory.
Level 2 Describes losses 2-4
e.g. They lost the Saar. Danzig was made a free city under the League of Nations. The Polish Corridor split
East Prussia from Germany. The Saar was put under League of Nations control for 15 years. The Rhineland
was to be occupied by the Allies for 15 years. Germany gave up West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia.
Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France. Malmedy was given to Belgium. Memel was taken under League
of Nations control. Colonies in Africa were given to the victorious powers as mandates.
Describe what Clemenceau and Lloyd George each wanted to achieve in the peace settlement of 1919-20
Level 1 General answer 1-2
e.g. They wanted peace. To reduce German power. Cripple Germany; revenge; humiliate.
Level 2 Describes aims 2-4
e.g. Clemenceau wanted France to be secure from future German attacks. He wanted to cripple Germany and
reduce its military strength. France wanted revenge on Germany for the destruction caused. Lloyd George
wanted to protect British interests by ending the threat to navy and empire but was aware that treating Germany
too harshly was storing up trouble for the future. He promised to squeeze until the pips squeak. To ensure
that France did not become too powerful.'
Note: max of 4 marks for ONE person. If personalities not identified keep in Level 1.
Why? 6 marks
Why did some people criticise the reparations which Germany had to pay?
There were many critics of the reparations arrangements in the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans, supported to
a degree by some in Britain, and notably the economist Keynes, had many criticisms. The total demanded was
beyond Germanys capacity to pay, especially as she emerged from a disastrous war with loss of territory and a
bankrupt treasury. Regions lost included those with a high concentration of industry such as Alsace-Lorraine
and the Saar. It was felt that the arrangements were punitive, justified by Article 231 the War Guilt Clause.
The long delay in fixing a final sum was also criticised. On the other hand there were those, especially in
France, who felt that Germany had been let of lightly given the ruthless way in which she had pursued her
aims during the war and the damage that had been inflicted upon the allies. The British, on the one hand were
very much involved in inflating claims against Germany by adding indirect damages because Britain would
3
have received little in direct damages , whilst others in the country were concerned that the claims would
damage a valuable trading partner.
Why did the victors fail to get everything they wanted at Versailles?
e.g. The victors were Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau. They were from different countries with
different ideas.
Level 2 Identifies why/what they wanted [24]
(One mark for each)
e.g. Wilson wanted to use the Fourteen Points. Clemenceau wanted security. The French wanted revenge.
Lloyd George wanted to protect British interests.
Level 3 Explains why [46]
(Award one mark for an explanation, additional mark for full explanation.)
e.g. Wilson had his Fourteen Points. He wanted these to be the basis for peace. At Versailles he was forced to
compromise as others were less idealistic. Wilson was weakened by the lack of support from back home.
Clemenceau wanted France to be secure from future German attacks. This meant weakening Germany and
reducing its military strength. He even wanted the break-up of Germany as a state, but he was opposed by
Wilson and Lloyd George. The French wanted revenge on Germany for the destruction the war had caused
and, therefore, wanted massive reparations. These were moderated by the influence of other two. Lloyd George
wanted to protect British interests but was aware that treating Germany too harshly would store up trouble for
the future. He had, however, promised the British people that he would squeeze the German lemon until the
pips squeaked. Lloyd George did not want to treat Germany too harshly as he wanted Germany as a future
trading partner.
Why did Germany dislike the Treaty of Versailles?
Level 1 General answer/describes terms of Treaty 1
e.g.
'It was unfair/harsh.
Level 2 Identifies why 2-4

e.g. 'It was a diktat.' 'It ignored the 14 points.' 'It reduced the armed forces.' 'It would stop them recovering.'
'They were humiliated.'
Level 3 Explains why 4-6
'They were not allowed to attend the Paris peace conference. The
terms were presented to Germany without negotiation.' 'They had
4
been forced to accept the responsibility for the war and the
damage caused and therefore had to pay reparations.' 'The amount
of reparations was extremely high and this led to hyperinflation.'
'It reduced the armed forces whilst others did not, thus reducing its
symbol of pride.' 'It lost territory. Its colonies and the Saar and
Upper Silesia were important to the German economy. This was
humiliating.' 'Under the 14 points other countries were granted
self-determination but Anschluss with Austria was forbidden and
in Czechoslovakia Germans were ruled by non-Germans.'
Examiners comment
In a significant number of responses, candidates erroneously thought that the Sudetenland was part of the
German Empire and that the Rhineland was taken over by the French.
Example 1
Germany disliked the Treaty because they were the ones to blame. Very harsh punishments was put on Germany
allowing only very little freedom. Strict rules were applied leaving Germany with no control of their own
country. This was a big shame and losing a lot of their pride. All the loss and damage to other countries was
Germanys fault and there were responsible for it. They had a lot smaller armed forces. The Treaty made
Germany very weak. They had no power of their own. It was impossible for them to stand up for themselves.
Level 1/1 mark
This answer is very general. It hints at the reasons for German dislike but fails to identify or explain them.
Example 2
Germany disliked the Treaty of Versailles for a variety of reasons. This is because the Treaty had a devastating
effect on Germany. Firstly Germany had to pay back the 6 billion pounds of reparation fees to the victors of the
war. Germany could not feed its people. Another reason was the disarmament of its forces. The worst thing
about the Treaty of Versailles was that Germany had to accept war guilt, which many said was not true. The loss
of territory also hit Germany. Overall these were the main reasons for why Germans disliked the Treaty of
Versailles.
Level 2/4 marks
In this answer, the candidate identifies a number of reasons but fails to explain why these reasons brought about
a German dislike of the Treaty of Versailles.
Example 3
5
The Germans were particularly angered by the war guilt clause

as they felt that WW1 was not entirely their fault. They didnt
like the fact that Germany had had no say in the treaty but had
simply been forced to sign it was a dictated peace. The
Germans felt humiliated by the extent of the reduction of their
armed forces, which had previously been Germanys pride. Their
army was reduced to 100,000 men, their air force was scrapped,
they werent allowed submarines. This was insufficient to
maintain security in the face of foreign aggression. The Treaty of
Versailles took away 10% of their land this splitting up the
German population and having them in other countries.
Germany lost all her overseas colonies, which angered Germany
as it made them weaker, less influential and it allowed Britain
and France to expand their influence as they ruled Germanys
past colonies as mandates.
Level 3/6 marks
The candidate has identified a number of reasons for German dislike and explains the reason for this dislike
within the context of the time.
Why was Germany dissatisfied with the peace treaty?
Level 1 General Answer 1
e.g.
Because it was not fair on them. Because it was harsh. Not given a say.

They were blamed. They had to pay reparations. They lost land. It limited the armed forces. Did not
accept they had lost. It caused inflation. They felt it was a diktat. Others did not disarm.
Germany was forced to accept the War Guilt clause saying they were to blame even though they had no
say.They had to pay reparations for the damage caused of 6600 million. They had lost important industrial
areas, such as the Saar. The wealth of the colonies was lost and giving them under mandate allowed other
countries to expand.The armed forces were limited. They could not have battleships, submarines and an air
force leaving them vulnerable to attack.
6
Why did the aims of the Big Three at Versailles differ?

e.g. The Big Three were Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau. They were from different countries with
different ideas.
Level 2 Identifies why [2-4]
e.g. Wilson wanted to use the Fourteen Points. Clemenceau wanted security. The French wanted revenge.
Lloyd George wanted to protect British interests.
Level 3 Explains why [4-6]
e.g. Wilson had his Fourteen Points. He wanted these to be the basis for peace. At Versailles he was forced to
compromise as others were less idealistic. He was weakened by lack of support back home. Clemenceau
wanted France to be secure from future German attacks. This meant weakening Germany and reducing its
military strength. The French wanted revenge on Germany for the destruction the war had caused. Lloyd
George wanted to protect British interests but was aware that treating Germany too harshly would store up
trouble for the future. He had however promised the British people that he would squeeze the German lemon
until the pips squeaked.
Why did the Treaty of Versailles cause problems for Germany in the years up to 1923?
Level 1 General answer 1
e.g. It was unfair/harsh.
e.g. It affected the strength and wealth of the country. It caused inflation/hyperinflation. They lost their
military power. It led to an invasion. They could not pay the reparations. Political unrest.
e.g. They thought the terms were harsh and unreasonable and they were not allowed to negotiate. This upset the
German people. Many Germans did not realise they had lost the war and blamed the Weimar Republic for
accepting the harsh terms of the Treaty. There were extremist attempts to overthrow the Weimar Republic such
as the Spartacus League and the extreme nationalist Freikorps. Germany delayed reparations payments and
French and Belgian forces occupied the Ruhr in 1923. The government action of printing more money caused
the German mark to lose its value. The Ruhr crises caused Germany to become bankrupt. A new government
(Stresemann) accepted that reparations would have to be paid. The harshness of the reparations made it
extremely difficult for Germany to recover economically and made future war likely.
Balance: 10 marks
Analysis 10 mark questions
It is the classic style of a statement, followed by an invitation to challenge or agree with the assertion.
7
Level One is clearly unsupported statements or assertions with no attempt to be balanced or to address
the question
Level Two is beginning to offer some evidence in support or against the statement
Level Three either agrees with the statement or disagrees with the statement but is offering accurate
evidence
Level Four offers both developed evidence for and against the assertion
Level Five offers both developed evidence for and against the assertion and also evaluates key phrases
in the question such as how far? or to what extent. Perhaps a hierarchy of importance of factors could
also be addressed
Were the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, other than reparations, unfair on Germany?
The fairness of the terms imposed upon Germany must be evaluated in reference to the 14 Point Programme
on the basis of which Germany surrendered and Germanys own conduct, especially in the east. There were
several areas which contained German speaking populations which were transferred to other countries without
consultation with the inhabitants, a clear breach of the principle of self-determination that featured
prominently in Wilsons programme. Disarmament reduced German forces to a point where they were
insufficient to ensure conditions of internal security and this disarmament was unilateral. Article 231 placed the
entire responsibility for the war upon Germany and her allies which was clearly unfair. On the other hand the
ruthlessness with which Germany had pursued her war aims, the damage inflicted upon the Allies, the refusal to
accept the 14 Point Programme when first offered and the extremely harsh terms imposed by Germany on a
defeated Russia all suggest that perhaps, in balance, Germany was not simply a victim of Allied revenge.
To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles a sensible treaty in the circumstances of the time? Explain your
answer
Level 1 Unsupported assertions 1
e.g.
Level 2
'It was because it ensured fighting ended.'

Identifies why 2-3
e.g. 'It was dealing with complex problems.' 'There was demand for revenge.' 'A less harsh treaty would not
have satisfied public opinion.' 'It did not meet the thoughts of the Big three leaders.' 'Germany had to pay
6600m.' (Identifies clauses)
Level 3 Explains why it was sensible OR not 3-5
e.g. 'Germany had to pay reparations for all the damage caused.' 'It returned land (Alsace-Lorraine) that
Germany had captured in earlier times.' could not have been sensible as it was imposed - a diktat.' 'Germany had
already agreed to many of the terms in the armistice.' With hindsight the Treaty helped to create the Nazi
regime in Germany.'
Level 4 Explains why it might AND might not be sensible at the time 5-7
'The war had been very severe. The victors were determined
that the terms were so severe that there was no chance of
e.g.
hostilities breaking out again.''The agreed armistice terms

impacted on the peace treaty. Germany had accepted the
principle of reparations, the loss of Alsace-Lorraine and the
army leave the left bank of the Rhine. It should therefore not
have been a surprise when they appeared in the final peace
treaty.' 'All the politicians at the peace conference were under
pressure to meet the expectations of public opinion not make the
peace treaty they wanted and there had to be compromise.' 'It
was a view that if Germany had won they would have enforced a
more severe treaty as they had done against Russia in March
1918.' 'It set up a body, the League of Nations to deal with any
unresolved issues.' 'Each of the big three thought that it might
have been different. There was a fear that the harshness might
result in further war (Britain) whilst France thought it should
have been more severe to punish Germany for earlier events.'
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of to what extent - at that time 8-10
Examiners Comment
For candidates confident in the technique required for (c) parts of questions, the idea of the extent and in the
circumstances of the time, posed few problems. A significant number of responses concentrated in general
terms on fair/unfair, ignoring the word sensible.
Example 1
The Treaty of Versailles represented peace with all the countries. Since Germany was attacking and destroying
the countries around them it seemed like a pretty sensible idea for Germany to be responsible and punished for
what they did and the consequences for their actions. Germany was put under control to prevent further harm.
Based on the Treaty of Versailles it might have been a little harsh with Germany, but it made them aware of the
mistakes they made and to remember not to ever do it again. The Treaty also made other countries safe and
protected it also gives them time to re-build and construct any damages made.
Level 2/3 marks
A simplistic answer that identifies reasons as to the appropriateness of the Treaty.
9
Example 2
The Treaty of Versailles was a sensible treaty in the circumstances of the time because the treaty was written
after the war by the three victors Britain, France and America. The France at the time was very anger because
how most of the devastation was done on French land. The French people had to repair buildings and lots of
farmland. This is why the French asked for such a high reparations bill. The French also wanted to weaken the
German economy so that they were not able to cause another war. Most people at the time felt that Germany
had deserve such a treaty because of aggression of Germany and her allies. At the time the treaty was sensible
because they had limited Germanys army and navy. If this had not been done there might have been a World
War II earlier.
Level 3/5 marks
This answer contains identification and explanation but only explores one side of the issue.
Example 3
At the time the Treaty of Versailles was created, many countries

were in ruin. France was especially damaged and weakened by
the war. Clemenceau blamed the Germans and wanted support,
in the form of reparations to help them recover. Therefore the
reparations Germany had to pay could be seen as sensible as
much of the war had been fought in France. The reduction of
Germanys armed forces could also be seen as quite a sensible
term of the Treaty. The Allies would, at the time, be concerned
that Germany may attack again and therefore it was sensible to
weaken them enough to prevent this. Similarly, the
demilitarisation of the Rhineland could be seen as sensible. The
French and Belgians would have been particularly concerned
about another German attack, particularly as they were already
so weak, so the Rhineland acted as a buffer zone to protect them.
The establishment of the League of Nations was also quite
sensible at this time. So close after the war, many nations
probably felt that the most important issue at the time was to
protect the peace and prevent another war from happening
again. Therefore the League of Nations was set up as an
10
international police force. However, the harshness of many of

the terms of the treaty could be seen as unsensible. France in
particular did not just want to help rebuild and protect France,
he also wanted revenge on Germany and to completely cripple it.
They wanted to prevent Germany from ever being able to attack
Germany again. Therefore huge amounts of reparations,
destroying the German economy, could be seen as unsensible as
Germany would want to seek revenge for this action. Also the
great reduction in the armed forces could be seen as unsensible
as it hurt German pride. The countries in the German empire
also became mandates to Britain and France. This could be seen
as unsensible as the British and French appeared to be
expanding their empires. Also, to prevent future conflicts it
perhaps would have been more sensible for all countries to
disarm to some extent, rather than just Germany. The war guilt
place on the German people was also not sensible as they were
not the only country at fault for the war. These harsh terms also
angered the Germans greatly and made them want revenge upon
the Allies. This made the Treaty unsensible. Therefore, although
I feel that some of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were
sensible and necessary to preserve peace, I also feel that the
harshness and extent of German punishment makes the Treaty
of Versailles not a sensible treaty, despite the circumstances of
the time.
Level 4/8 marks
This answer explains why the Treaty might, or might not, have been sensible at the time. It deals with what
extent in this manner rather than explicitly arguing the point and thus remains in Level 4.
Was the Treaty of Versailles fair? Explain your answer

11

e.g. It was fairer than it might have been.
Level 2 Identifies reasons/describes terms 2-3
It was not fair because it was dictated. It was unfair on the German people. It was fair because Germany had
agreed to an armistice agreement. Germany should not have been blamed. It was not fair because of
reparations.
Level 3 Explains agreement OR disagreement 3-5
Level 4 Explains agreement AND disagreement 5-7
e.g. The German view was it was not fair. They thought it was
harsh and as they had not been in the talks considered them a
diktat. As many Germans did not accept they had lost the war
the Weimar Republic took the blame for accepting the harsh
terms such as the reparations. The harshness of the reparations
made it extremely difficult for Germany to recover economically
and made future war likely. Germany felt they had been left
vulnerable to future acts by the reduction in the armed forces.
Was it right to put total blame on Germany for starting the war
when other countries were just as aggressive in the years leading
up to 1914? It was unfair because it punished the ordinary
people of Germany rather than the rulers through reparations.
The Germans felt they would be dealt with under the Fourteen
Points. This was not so. The Treaty aimed to destroy Germany
economically. Europe needed a strong German industry. Could
a compromise be fair? explain aims of leaders. On the other
hand many thought the peacemakers did a reasonable job. It was
a complex matter and given the demand for revenge they could
have been harsher as was the German peace treaty with Russia.
The Treaty was not as bad as Germany argued. By 1925
German steel production was twice that of Britain.
12
Level 5 Explains with evaluation 8
13
The League of Nations.

Describe: 4 marks
What was the Abyssinian Crisis?
The Abyssinian Crisis is a reference to the events of 1935 1936 brought about by the colonial ambitions of the
Italian dictator Mussolini. He wished to conquer Abyssinia, one of only two parts of Africa not already under
colonial rule, to create an Italian Empire and join together the Italian controlled areas of Eritrea and Somaliland.
He was also drive by the desire to avenge the earlier defeat of Italian colonial forces by Abyssinia at Adowa in
1896. In 1935 Italian forces invaded, they were overwhelmingly superior in strength and resorted to the use of
poison gas. Abyssinia appealed to the League of Nations and the crisis lasted until Mussolini completed the
conquest in 1936, involving in one way or another Great Britain, France, the League and less directly Germany.
Describe the actions taken by the League of Nations to solve the Abyssinian Crisis?
The League was approached by Haile Selassie for protection when Italy invaded. Under the terms of the
Covenant the league ought to have imposed stringent sanctions however actual actions fell short of this. Some
economic sanctions were imposed on Italy but excluded essential war materials such as oil, coal and steel and
were therefore ineffective. The League was hampered by the attitude of key members, especially Britain and
France who, one the one hand wished to uphold the principles of the League but, on the other hand, were
concerned that strict measures would drive Mussolini into the arms of Hitler. The Suez Canal remained open for
the transportation of Italian war materials and troops and the Hoare-Laval Pact, although not approved by the
League, was evidence of the attempts of its key members to reach an arrangements with Mussolini. In 1936
Haile Selassie fled, Abyssinia was occupied and the League tamely ended sanctions in July.
What were the main weaknesses in the structure and organisation of the League of Nations?
Level 2 Describes weaknesses [24]: (One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for
supporting detail.)
There were many weaknesses in the structure and organization of the League. For example, not all nations were
members of the League. The USA never joined, Germany was not invited to join until 1926 and the USSR until
1934. Without such important countries as members, this was bound to be a problem. Other nations left when
they got into disputes with the League, such as Japan over Manchuria in 1932 and Italy over Abyssinia in 1937.
The League had no armed forces of its own, having to rely on member countries to supplies troops to enforce
collective security. Sanctions were therefore unlikely to work without powerful countries being present. The
League was dominated by Britain and France but they could not agree on how it should be run and therefore
decisions were ineffectual. Connected to this was the cumbersome machinery of the League. The League met
infrequently, was too slow to take action as all decisions of the Assembly and the Council had to be taken
unanimously. There was a right of veto in the Council which slowed things up even more. It was therefore
unrealistic to expect nations to obey a toothless body.
Describe events in Corfu in 1923.
Level 0 No evidence submitted or response does not address the question [0]
Level 1 General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1]
14
e.g. People were killed.

Level 2 Describes events [24]
(One mark for each relevant point, additional mark for supporting detail.) e.g. In August five Italian surveyors
who were working for the League of Nations in mapping the border between Greece and Albania were killed on
the Greek side of the border. Mussolini demanded compensation from the Greek government. Mussolini
bombarded and occupied Corfu because the Greeks refused to pay compensation.
What was the Hoare-Laval Pact?
e.g.
'It was a plan to end the invasion of Abyssinia.' 'It was drawn up by Britain and France.' 'Abyssinia
would be split up.'
Level 2 Describes pact 2-4
e.g. 'Under the plan Italy would gain much of the fertile lands in the north and south of the country.' 'A huge
area in the south was to be reserved for future Italian economic expansion and settlement.' 'Abyssinia would be
reduced to half its original size (two thirds). 'There would be a narrow access to the Red Sea.'
Examiners comment
The Hoare-Laval Pact was often not known, judging by the number of blank spaces appearing on answer
Papers. In other instances information was totally confused over who was involved, their role and the status of
the Pact.
How did the League of Nations hope to prevent future wars between nations?
e.g. By dealing with the problem. Apply sanctions. By co-operation. By ending trade and financial
relations.
Level 2 Describes ways 2-4
e.g. By giving all members equal voting rights. By maintaining the peace settlement. By getting the
quarrelling members to talk about their problems. By condemning an aggressor so they felt guilty and
backed down. Imposing economic sanctions. Through the use of collective security. Through the
encouragement of nations to disarm.
What were the weakness of Britain and France as leaders of the League?
i) Just come out of a war so both bankrupt
ii) Selfish and wanted things for each other like to punish Germany or to maintain freedom of seas
iii) Both imperial powers so would use it to extend empires
iv) Would not send their own troops to disputes
v) Would be unlikely to apply sanctions
vi) Actually disagreed between each other which was not a good omen
15
What were the aims of the League of Nations?

e.g. To impose a peace settlement.
Level 2 Describes aims 2-4
e.g. To maintain peace To encourage international co-operation. To introduce collective security. To settle
all disputes peacefully. To encourage countries to disarm. To encourage co-operation between countries on
matters of international concern such as fighting disease. To improve living and working conditions of people
in all parts of the world. Encourage economic co-operation.
Describe two ways in which the League of Nations was successful in the 1920s. (4)
The League of Nations successfully dealt with the dispute between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland
Islands. Both countries claimed control of these islands and after consideration the league decided they should
go to Finland and this was accepted by Sweden, war was avoided. In 1925 Greece and Bulgaria came close to
all-out war but the League took prompt action and ruled that Greece was at fault. Both sides stopped fighting
and Greece agreed to pay Bulgaria compensation.
Describe the setting up of Manchukuo
e.g. It was set up after Japan in invaded it in 1931. Japan used the explosion on the Manchurian railway to
attack Manchuria
Level 2 Describes in detail 2-4
On September 18, 1931, near Mukden in southern Manchuria, a section of railroad owned by Japan's Southern
Manchuria Railway was dynamited. On the morning of September 19, 1931 the Japanese army opened fire on
the Chinese garrison nearby, in response to the alleged Chinese attack on the railway. The small air force was
destroyed and the soldiers fled their destroyed barracks as five hundred Japanese troops attacked the Chinese
garrison of around seven thousand. By the evening the fighting was over and the Japanese had occupied
Mukden, the capital of Manchuria, at the cost of five hundred Chinese and only two Japanese lives. Within five
months of the Mukden Incident, the Imperial Japanese Army had overrun all major towns and cities in the
province of Manchuria. Lord Lytton of Great Britain, arrived in Shanghai in January 1932 on behalf of the
League to examine the situation. In March 1932, the puppet state of Manchukuo was established, with the
former emperor of China, Pu Yi, installed as head of state.
Why: 6 marks
Why did the League of Nations fail in its efforts to keep international peace?
The League failed to maintain international peace for two main types of reason. Firstly the League itself
suffered from serious structural weaknesses that prevented it from taking effective action against aggression to
enforce collective security. It had no independent military force and so had to rely upon contributions from
16
increasingly reluctant members who feared being drawn into a conflict. The veto powers of members states
were such that unanimity was required before action could be taken and this was almost impossible to achieve.
The USA did not join the League, the USSR was excluded, joined and then was expelled, Germany joined
briefly, after years of exclusion but resigned with the coming to power of Hitler. Thus at no time did the League
have all the major powers as members. There were also political problems, some resulting from the League
being created as part of the Versailles settlement. This meant that the states which had lost out in the settlement
had little interest in supporting the League. The depression seriously undermined the League as states though
less of cooperation and more of self-preservation. The Western powers, who should have been the Leagues
greatest supporters, Britain and France were never really convinced by the idea of collective security and
increasingly undermined the League by engaging in negotiations with the dictators outside the framework of the
League.
Why was the League of Nations weak from the start?
Level 1 General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] e.g. People could not agree.
Level 2 Identifies AND/OR describes reasons [23]
e.g. The USA was not a member. The League had no army. Defeated nations, such as Germany, were not
invited to join. Decisions had to be unanimous. Britain and France, the main members, rarely worked
together. The USSR was not allowed to join.
Level 3 Explains reasons [46]
e.g. The USA did not join the League. The Americans were really the only nation with the resources or the
influence to make the League work. The Leagues trade sanctions would be useless if countries could still trade
with the USA.
Why did the League of Nations fail to restrict the aggression of Japan in the 1930s?
e.g. It did not have the strength. It was not prepared to take action.
e.g. Japan ignored the League. It was too far away. The investigation took too long. Unwilling to impose
economic or military sanctions.
e.g. Japan was a powerful nation and was determined to ignore the League. The League was powerless. Asia
was a long way away and not seen as vital to the countries in Europe. It was thought that Japan had legitimate
economic interests in Manchuria. China was weak and some members of the League welcomed the imposition
of order. It instigated an investigation (Lytton) which took over a year to complete by which time the invasion
was complete. Japan refused to hand back Manchuria and left the League. Members were unwilling to
impose economic sanctions as the Depression was already damaging world trade. The Powers were unwilling
to impose military action for fear of Japanese attacks on Far East colonies.
17
Why was Japan interested in Manchuria?

e.g. It had lots of resources.
Level 2 Identifies reasons in more detail 2-4
e.g. It had coal, iron and oil reserves. There was a lot of land to settle the surplus population It already
owned the Manchurian railway so wanted to consolidate its hold on the region It was very close to the
Japanese mainland
Level 3 Explains why in further detail 4-6
e.g. There was depression at home and it would take peoples minds away China was in chaos so it was a
vulnerable area to take over. It needed surplus materials to carry on its drive towards full industrialisation It
wanted to have a sphere of influence in the region The other great powers had colonies; it wanted to show
that it could be a great power too by acquiring colonies. It was upset by the Washington Naval Conference.
Why did the Depression make the work of the League more difficult?

Level 2 Identifies why [24]
The work of the League became very difficult when the Great Depression began. For example, one of the
Leagues aims was to encourage economic trade between countries and this could not happen in an economic
crisis when countries turned to protectionism. Economic rivalry increased and as many countries were badly hit
by a loss of exports. Some of these countries, such as Japan, turned to expansion. The militarists in Japan
launched an attack on Manchuria which created the first real crisis for the League. It was also difficult for the
League to keep the peace when the Depression increased the appeal of extreme political parties. Many people
lost their jobs and they therefore turned to extreme political parties that promised solutions. These extremist
parties, like the Nazis in Germany, did not believe in democracy and international cooperation. They cared for
themselves and ignored the authority of the League. Furthermore, Mussolini and the Fascists in Italy would go
on to attack Abyssinia in 1935, leading to the second great crisis for the League. Therefore with extremism there
was an increased risk of militarism which would ultimately threaten world peace. In addition, parties like the
Nazis built up their armed forces to counter the Depression. This was against one of the major aims of the
League which had tried to bring about disarmament. Furthermore, because of the Depression the only weapon
available to the League: sanctions would now be unlikely to work. The Depression had damaged world trade
and the imposition of economic sanctions would damage it further, therefore no country would be willing to
impose them. Lastly, member countries now looked out for themselves and were unwilling to focus on the
League. The two main countries left running the League, Britain and France had no time or money to devote to
its organization, therefore making its work much harder.
Why did the League of Nations not restore Manchuria to China?
It did not have the strength. It was not prepared to take action.
18

Japan ignored the League. It was too far away. The investigation took too long. Unwilling to impose
economic or military sanctions.
Japan was a powerful nation and was determined to ignore the League. The League was powerless. Asia was
a long way away and not seen as vital to the countries in Europe. It was thought that Japan had legitimate
economic interests in Manchuria. China was weak and some members of the League welcomed the imposition
of order. It instigated an investigation (Lytton) which took over a year to complete by which time the invasion
was complete. Japan refused to hand back Manchuria and left the League. Members were unwilling to
impose economic sanctions as the Depression was already damaging world trade. The Powers were unwilling
to impose military action for fear of Japanese attacks on Far East colonies.
Why did the League of Nations have some successes during the 1920s?
e.g. It was able to settle disputes.
Level 2 Identifies why/describes successes. 2-4
e.g. Because its decisions were accepted. Disputes were often between smaller countries. Candidates may
describe the successes without any indication of why it was a success. This may well include reference to the
Aaland Islands, Greek-Bulgarian War and Upper Silesia.
e.g. Early successes of the League gave nations confidence and they wanted it to work. War had just ended
and countries did not want more hostility. Countries such as Germany and Japan were not powerful and
therefore not a problem. Most of the disputes in this period involved smaller nations and they accepted more
readily the L of N judgement. Finland and Sweden were in dispute over the Aaland Islands (1920). The
League studied the case and both countries accepted the Leagues decision. In the Greek Bulgarian border
dispute both sides stopped fighting. The Greeks were fined. Both sides obeyed the Leagues orders. The L of N
was able to help prevent the collapse of the Austrian and Hungarian economies by arranging international help.
Why did some countries view the setting up of the League of Nations with suspicion?
i) Might want to get involved in world disputes
ii) Might want to force them to apply sanctions
iii) Victors club and only chosen people could join
iv) Designed to enforce unpopular treaties
v) Designed by Wilson who some doubted
vi) Might be a tool of Britain and France
vii) Might use it to extend colonies
viii) Might force them to abandon freedom of seas etc.
19
Balance: 10 marks
The League of Nations was a failure. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
Level 1 General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] e.g. It was a success early on.
Level 2 Identifies AND/OR describes agreement /disagreement [2]
e.g. It failed over Corfu. It failed over Abyssinia. It failed over Vilna. It had success over the Aaland
Islands. The Health Committee was successful. The Drugs Committee was successful.
Level 3 Explains agreement OR disagreement [35]
e.g. The League failed over Vilna. It was quite clear that Poland was the aggressor because they took control of
Vilna, the capital of the new state of Lithuania. The French did not want to upset Poland because they were a
potential ally against Germany and Britain was not prepared to act alone. The Poles kept Vilna because the
League did nothing.
OR
e.g. The Leagues Health Committee was successful. They worked to defeat the dreaded disease leprosy and
began a global campaign to exterminate mosquitoes, thus greatly reducing cases of malaria and yellow fever.
Level 4 Explains agreement AND disagreement [57]
Both sides of level 3.
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of how far [8-10]
How far was the League of Nations a failure? Explain your answer.
e.g. It was not a failure in the 1920s. It was a failure because it was weak.
Level 2 Identifies impact 2-3
e.g. It failed because it did nothing about Manchuria or Abyssinia. It was a failure because the Second World
War started. It was a failure because it failed to get disarmament. It failed because they had to introduce other
treaties and pacts. It had success in 1920/1 over minor disputes. It was affected by the Great Depression. It
was successful in getting refugees back home, improving working conditions and health.
Level 3 Explains failure OR success 3-6
Level 4 Explains failure AND success 5-7.
20
The League was a failure over Abyssinia as it failed to imposed appropriate meaningful sanctions, such as oil
and thus allowed Italian aggression. It was a failure because it was not powerful enough as America was not a
member. This made economic sanctions ineffective in for example Abyssinia. Countries such as Britain and
France were reluctant to act unless their own interests were threatened as in Manchuria. The impact of the
Depression was great and encouraged countries to look after themselves such as Germany and the growth of the
Nazis. The League was a failure as it allowed countries such as Germany to rearm and this resulted in the
Second World War. The League failed in the 1920s to bring about disarmament with the Washington
Conference being as close as it came. Its work had to be assisted by the Locarno Treaties which resolved left
over problems from the war and the Kellogg-Briand Pact that encouraged the settlement of disputes by peaceful
means. The successes of the League came in the 1920s when it dealt successfully with minor disputes over the
Aaland Islands and in Upper Silesia. The League successfully dealt with refugees in Turkey and work to
defeat leprosy. It freed large numbers of slaves in Sierra Leone.
Level 5 Explains and evaluates how far 8-10
How far was the League of Nations a failure in its peacekeeping role in the 1920s? Explain your answer
e.g. It was successful as it dealt well with some events. It must have been successful as it was still in
existence in the 1930s. It could handle small issues.
Level 2 Identifies areas of disputes 2-3
e.g. It settled dispute over the Aaland Islands. Upper Silesia. Greece and Bulgaria. Vilna. Italians and
Corfu. Dealt with disputes in S. America.
Level 3 Explains successes OR failures 3-5
Level 4 Explains successes AND failures 5-7
e.g. It resolved the dispute in 1920 between Sweden and Finland over who should govern the Aaland Islands by
deciding they were to go to Finland. Sweden accepted and war was avoided. In 1921 it helped to arrange the
division of Upper Silesia between Poland and Germany after both had claimed the land should be theirs. Both
accepted the Leagues decision. In 1925 it stopped a Greek invasion of Bulgaria and forced the Greeks to pay
compensation. In 1923 it took no action when the Port of Memel, under international control, was seized by
Lithuania. Mussolini bombarded Corfu in revenge for the killing of an Italian general. Mussolini was ordered
to withdraw which he did. The Greeks were made to pay compensation. Mussolini used his influence and the
League was powerless. the League requested Poland to withdraw from Vilna. It refused and remained in Vilna.
The League was ignored.
Level 5 Explains and evaluates how successful 8-10
How successful was the League of Nations in dealing with disputes during the 1920s? Explain your answer.
It was successful as it dealt well with some events. It must have been successful as it was still in existence in
the 1930s. It could handle small issues.
21
Level 2 Identifies areas of disputes 2-3

It settled dispute over the Aaland Islands. Upper Silesia. Greece and Bulgaria. Vilna. Italians and Corfu.
Dealt with disputes in S. America.
Level 3 Explains successes OR failures 3-5
Level 4 Explains successes AND failures 5-7
It resolved the dispute in 1920 between Sweden and Finland over who should govern the Aaland Islands by
deciding they were to go to Finland. Sweden accepted and war was avoided. In 1921 it helped to arrange the
division of Upper Silesia between Poland and Germany after both had claimed the land should be theirs. Both
accepted the Leagues decision. In 1925 it stopped a Greek invasion of Bulgaria and forced the Greeks to pay
compensation. In 1923 it took no action when the Port of Memel, under international control, was seized by
Lithuania. Mussolini bombarded Corfu in revenge for the killing of an Italian general. Mussolini was ordered
to withdraw which he did. The Greeks were made to pay compensation. Mussolini used his influence and the
League was powerless. the League requested Poland to withdraw from Vilna. It refused and remained in Vilna.
The League was ignored.
Level 5 Explains and evaluates how successful 8-10
How successful was the League of Nations in the 1920s? Explain your answer.
Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1]
e.g. Very because it settled disputes between nations.
Level 2 Identifies success/failure [2-3]
e.g. It resolved the Aaland Islands dispute. It arranged to help Austria and Hungary financially. It settled a
dispute over Upper Silesia. It settled a dispute between Greece and Bulgaria. It failed in Lithuania. It failed
with Corfu. Failed to bring about disarmament.
Level 3 Explains successes or failures [3-5]
Level 4 Explains successes and failures [5-7]
e.g. Successes Both Sweden and Finland claimed the Aaland Islands and were ready to fight. The L of N
decided they should be awarded to Finland and this was accepted by Sweden. War was avoided. Austria and
Hungary faced bankruptcy after the war. The League arranged international loans to aid recovery. Upper
Silesia was a plebiscite area wanted by both Poland and Germany. The L of N decided to share the area and this
was accepted. The Greek-Bulgaria border was a source of tension and the Greeks invaded in 1925. The
League condemned the Greeks and pressured them to withdraw. This they did.
Failures Vilna was claimed by Lithuania and Poland. Vilna was occupied by Polish forces. The League tried to
negotiate but failed. League members were not willing to supply armed forces and Britain and France saw
Poland as a barrier against Germany and Russia. And did not want to upset Poland. Five Italians were killed on
the Greek side of the Greek-Albanian border. Mussolini demanded compensation from the Greek government.
He did not get it and attacked Corfu. The League would not condemn Italy and put pressure on the Greeks for
an apology. Britain and France did not want to upset Mussolini.
22
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of how successful [8-10]

To what extent was the League of Nations a success in its peacekeeping role? Explain your answer

Level 2 Identifies achievements/failures [23]
Level 5 Explains with evaluative judgement of to what extent [710]
The League of Nations undoubtedly had some successes in its peacekeeping role but it tended to fail more
significantly in the 1930s and ultimately failed to prevent the collapse of the peace in Europe in 1939.
It had many successes in the 1920s. It resolved small border disputes in the 1920s such as the one between
Sweden and Finland in 1921 over the Aaland Islands by deciding they were to go to Finland. War was avoided
as both sides accepted the decision of the League. In 1921 it helped to arrange a plebiscite in Upper Silesia after
both Poland and Germany had claimed the land. Both accepted the Leagues decision of splitting the area in
accordance with the plebiscite and ensuring the availability of services to both areas. However, it had some
failures: for example over Vilna and Corfu. After the Polish invasion of Vilna in 1920, the League was ignored
when it requested Poland to withdraw. Mussolini was ordered to withdraw from Corfu in 1923 which he did.
However, the Greeks were made to pay compensation and Mussolini had used his influence with the
Conference of Ambassadors to get the money awarded to Italy. This undermined the League as it was being
seen to favour the larger and more powerful nations.
However, the League was not as successful in the 1930s. The League failed over the Manchurian Crisis between
1931 and 1932, where it took twelve months for Lord Lytton to report back to the League and in the end, the
League did nothing more than condemn Japans actions. They took no military action and even refused to vote
for economic sanctions for fear of losing Japan as an ally. When the Report was finally accepted Japan left the
League. The League did impose sanctions on Italy after they invaded Abyssinia in 1935 but these were
ineffective as they did not include oil, whilst behind the scenes the Hoare-Laval Plan showed that Britain and
France were not prepared to take action. This secret pact embarrassed Britain and France and seriously
undermined the League. It emerged weakened from the episode and its role in international peace keeping was
effectively over.
In conclusion, it seems that to a certain extent the League was effective in its peacekeeping role. However,
when it was successful the disputes tended to be minor and involved smaller powers such as Finland and
Sweden. It was also successful in these cases as the countries concerned tended to accept the decisions, such as
Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia. However, when great powers such as Italy or Japan were concerned
the League was less successful. They were hampered by the fact that the countries involved in the disputes did
not accept the verdict of the League such as Manchuria and Abyssinia. The League was not helped either by the
effects of the Great Depression. In the final analysis, the League was successful on a small scale in the 1930s
but failed badly on a larger scale in the 1930s.
How far did the League of Nations achieve its aims in the period 1920 and 1932? Explain your answer fully.
e.g. It did and it didnt.
23
Level 2 Identifies reasons 2-3

e.g. It did as its commissions helped a lot of people but it didnt as it failed to stop disarmament and war or
aggression
Level 3 Explains in more detail 3-5
Examples could be.
Did
-ILO
-Mandates
-Health
-Aaland Islands
-Upper Silesia
Did not
-Corfu
-Mosul
-Failure to disarm
-Manchuria
Level 4 Explains in good detail and is balanced 5-7
As per above but really explains the incidents in detail to show success and failure
Level 5 Explains as above but with evaluation 7-10
e.g. Will explain about the covenant and measure its success/failure against its aims and will really show how it
did or did not achieve its aims by 1932.
How far did the League of Nations achieve its aims in the period 1932 1936?
It had achieved its aims in this period. It was a failure because it was weak.
Level 2 Identifies impact 2-3
It did not achieve its aims because it did nothing about Manchuria or Abyssinia. It did not achieve its aims
because the Second World War started. It did not achieve its aims because it failed to get disarmament. It did
not achieve its aims they had to introduce other treaties and pacts. It was affected by the Great Depression. It
did achieve its aims was successful in getting refugees back home, improving working conditions and health.
Level 3 Explains did not meet aims OR did not 3-6
Level 4 Explains failures AND success 5-7. Candidates may well use specific incidents to explain failure (or
success). These should be credited.
24
The League was a failure over Abyssinia as it failed to imposed appropriate meaningful sanctions, such as oil,
and thus allowed Italian aggression. It did not achieve its aims because it was not powerful enough as America
was not a member. This made economic sanctions ineffective in for example Abyssinia. Countries such as
Britain and France were reluctant to act unless their own interests were threatened as in Manchuria. The
impact of the Depression was great and encouraged countries to look after themselves such as Germany and the
growth of the Nazis. The League did not achieve its aims as it allowed countries such as Germany to rearm
and this resulted in the Second World War. The League did not achieve its aims to bring about disarmament
with the Washington Conference being as close as it came. The successes of the League came in the 1920s
when it dealt successfully with minor disputes over the Aaland Islands and in Upper Silesia. The League did
not achieve its aims between 1932 and 1936
Level 5 Explains and evaluates how far the League achieved its aims 8-10
How far can the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s be blamed on the Great Depression? Explain
your answer
e.g. It can because it was ignored as countries tried to improve their economies. It failed to deal with powerful
countries.
e.g. Because of the pre-occupation with unemployment. Because of the rise in nationalism and extremist
parties. Because of the rise in militarism. It failed because of Manchuria and Abyssinia. Because of the
failure of collective security. USA not a member.
e.g. The world economic crisis caused by the Great Depression caused millions to lose their jobs. In
desperation they turned to extreme political parties. In Germany the Nazi Party were elected to solve economic
and social problems and to overthrow the Treaty. Britain was suffering high unemployment. It was not willing
to get involved in sorting out international disputes while its economy was suffering. In Italy economic
problems economic problems encouraged Mussolini to look abroad for distractions from the difficulties facing
government. In Japan the countrys economy was in collapse and this led to the take-over of Manchuria. The
Japanese occupied the whole of Manchuria. The League instructed Japan to withdraw but it refused. The League
did not have the power to force Japan to obey. Everything seemed very distant to League members as Asia
matters were not vital to Europe. The Lytton Committee reported in 1932 and condemned Japans actions. Japan
left the League. In 1935 Italy invaded Abyssinia with a modern army. The League imposed sanctions but these
did not include oil and other war materials. Britain and France were not prepared to back tough action and the
Leagues actions failed and so it lost its credibility. Powerful nations were not members e.g. USA and others
e.g. Germany withdrew and began to re-arm against the Treaty. Another aspect was militarism and countries
such as Germany, Italy and Japan built up military strength often with Treaties such as Anglo-German Naval
Treaty and Nazi-Soviet Pact. The structure of the League was weak. America were not members and they had
no army.
Level 5 Explains with evaluation 8-10
25
The origins of WWII.

Describe: 4 marks
What actions did Hitler take between 1933 and 1937 to destroy the Treaty of Versailles?

Level 2 Describes actions [24]
Hitler took several steps between 1933 and 1937 to destroy the Treaty of Versailles? Hitler took Germany out of
the League of Nations in 1935 and announced he was re-arming. He introduced an air-force and announced the
introduction of conscription in the same year which would take the German army well beyond the 100,000 limit
of Versailles. The Anglo-German Naval treaty was also signed showing that Versailles was being ignored and
that it was his intention to build a big navy. In 1936 Germany remilitarized the Rhineland and immediately
began to build fortifications there.
In what ways did Hitler build up his armed forces before 1936?
Hitler began to build up his armed forces before 1936 in the following way. He started to increase the size of the
army from 1933 and introduced conscription in 1935. He then began to massively expand the army beyond the
100,000 limited at Versailles. In the same year he revealed the existence of the Luftwaffe, again in defiance of
Versailles. Through the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935, he could build a fleet one-third the size of
Britains and have the same number of submarines.
OR
Before the 1936 reoccupation of the Rhineland Hitler has already taken several steps to build up Germanys
military strength. These steps had focussed upon removing the restrictions placed upon Germany by the terms
of the Treaty of Versailles. He had begun a rearmament programme secretly but by 1935 felt sufficiently
confident to announce that an air force had been created, tanks and other restricted items were being produced
in increasing numbers. Conscription had been reintroduced and in 1935 Hitler had negotiated with Britain the
Anglo-German Naval Treaty which allowed him to increase the strength of the German navy until in equalled
33% that of the British fleet, Versailles had set 25% as the limit.
What was the policy of appeasement, followed by Britain in the 1930s?
Level 1 General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] e.g. Britain gave in. It was a policy
associated most closely with Neville Chamberlain.
Level 2 Describes policy [24]
e.g. A policy used by Britain to avoid war. Britain made concessions to Hitler in the hope that he would be
satisfied. A policy to reach agreement with Germany to settle its grievances once and for all.
When Hitler came to power, what did he hope to achieve in foreign policy?
26
e.g. To make Germany a world power. Restoration of national pride. To remove the Treaty of Versailles.
Level 2 Describes Hitlers aims 2-4
e.g. A giant empire in Eastern Europe where pure Aryan Germans would live. To remove the Treaty of
Versailles e.g. Saar, Rhineland. To destroy the USSR and those who believed in communism.
How did the 1935 plebiscite change the situation in the Saar?
e.g.
The people got their wishes. The vote was 477000 for; 48000 against.
Level 2 Describes impact 2-4

e.g. Over 90% of the people voted to return to German control. The rich coal-mining area came back under
German control. The plebiscite reversed the decision of the Treaty of Versailles. Under the Treaty the Saar
had been under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years. It allowed Germany to regain territory. It
boosted Hitlers power as the numbers voting for return was over 90%.It re-united some German speaking
people.
What were the aims of Hitlers foreign policy?
e.g. To restore German pride. To make Germany a world power. Rearmament. Recover lost land. Create a
greater Germany.
Level 2 Describes aims [2-4]
e.g. To establish a large empire in Eastern Europe where pure Aryan Germans would live. Anschluss with
Austria. To regain the Saar and re-militarise the Rhineland. To destroy the USSR and those who believed in
communism. To unite all German speaking people. To remove the Treaty of Versailles.
What measures did Hitler take to prepare Germany for War by 1938?
Level One (1-2)
General description, rearmament, economy, autobahns and conscription
Level 2 (3-4)
The above but in detail with facts, figures and dates. Perhaps something on propaganda towards Jews and the
belief that they were taking Germany to war.
Describe how Germany re-established control over the Saar and the Rhineland
(2 for each)
27
For the Saar:

Under the Treaty the Saar had been under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years. There was a vote:
The vote was 477000 for; 48000 against. Over 90% of the people voted to return to German control. The
plebiscite reversed the decision of the Treaty of Versailles. They decided if it should remain with the League of
Nations or not., The League of Nations held the plebiscite that had been promised. The plebiscite was held to
decide whether the region should retain to German rule.
For the Rhineland:
In March, Hitler ordered his troops back into the Rhineland, against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. It
was the time of the Abyssinian crisis. Frances leaders were not prepared to act. Britain thought it belonged
to Germany. France had just signed a treaty with the USSR to protect each other against attack from Germany.
Hitler said this agreement placed him under threat and he should therefore be able to place troops on his own
frontier. The League condemned Hitlers action but had no power to do anything else. The French were about
to hold an election and none of their leaders was prepared to take responsibility of taking France into war.
They did not realise how weak the German army was but France would not act without British support.
Britain would not risk war over Hitler marching into his own backyard The majority of people welcomed the
troops.
In what ways did Hitler break the Treaty of Versailles between 1933 and 1938?
Rearmament, Anglo-German Naval Treaty, Luftwaffe, Rhineland, Anschluss, Sudetenland.
Why? 6 marks
Why was remilitarisation of the Rhineland a risk for Hitler?
The main reason why the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was such a risk for Hitler was that he did not know
how Britain and France would react. He was breaking the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and in addition the
demilitarisation of the Rhineland had been confirmed by Germany at Locarno in 1925. Under the terms of both
of these treaties, Britain and France could have carried out military action against him. His army was very small
due to the terms of Versailles (100,000) and he only sent 30,000 of those men into the Rhineland. Facing him
was a French army of over a million men and the might of the British navy if called upon. Many German
generals were unhappy with the plan as the French would outnumber the German troops. It could lead to a war
which Germany was not prepared for and would lose Hitler both the support of his people and the army leaders.
It would be his first failure since being appointed Chancellor in 1933 if the plan did not succeed. This is why
the action was so risky.
OR
Hitler himself was extremely nervous about the reoccupation of the Rhineland as he was aware that if France or
Britain resisted his troops would be forced to retreat. However he gambled that the democracies would not take
such action and was proved correct. France at the time was in political turmoil and so was not willing to act
alone and relations between Britain and France at the time were rather strained. Britain was not willing to
intervene with force because opinion was divided. Many felt that Germany had been harshly treated at
Versailles and, as the Rhineland was German territory, could not see the sense of a war to prevent German
troops entering Germany. Both France and Britain were very concerned about Mussolinis actions in the
Mediterranean where there had been attacks on shipping and were therefore unwilling to redeploy naval forces
to the North Sea and Channel which war with Germany would have required.
28
Why did Britain go to war over Poland?

Level 1 General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] e.g. They thought it was the right time.
e.g. Britain had guaranteed to preserve the independence of Poland. Britain no longer trusted Hitler. Hitler
ignored Britains ultimatum. Hitler invaded Poland.
(One mark for an explanation, additional mark for full explanation.) e.g. Britain had no choice but to go to war
over Poland. Britain had guaranteed they would preserve the independence of Poland and so when German
armies invaded Poland and Hitler then gave no reply to the British ultimatum, Britain was obliged to intervene
and support Poland.
Why was Hitlers foreign policy successful up to 1938?
e.g. Because he was not opposed. He was a gambler.
e.g. Britain was pre-occupied. Britain still felt guilty over the harsh peace terms of 1919. He formed Treaties
and agreements that allowed him to develop. Because of appeasement. The League of Nations had failed.
e.g. Under the Treaty of Versailles the Saar was placed under the League of Nations control. In 1935 a
plebiscite was held which gave an overwhelming vote for the return to Germany. This was a tremendous
propaganda success. Germany re-occupied the Rhineland. They thought the French would resist but this did
not happen. Britain, France and Italy formed the Stresa Front condemning German re-armament but were not
prepared to take any action. The Anglo-German Naval treaty allowed Germany to increase its navy. This
allowed Germany to ignore the restrictions in the T of V. The Rome-Berlin Axis allowed closer working
relationships allowing Hitler to test his new military equipment in the Spanish Civil War. Neither Britain or
France wanted to fight over Czechoslovakia and followed a policy of appeasement giving Hitler what he
demanded. The L of N, after Abyssinia, was not in a position to stop Hitler. He used troops in Austria to
ensure the plebiscite went his way. B and F concentrating on the Depression and Hitler seized his chance.
B and F considered communism a greater threat and needed Hitler.
Explain why Hitler wanted the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939.
Level 1 general answer 1
e.g.
29
To stop opposition. To regain territory. To build a relationship.
Level 2 identifies why 2-4

e.g. Hitler wanted territory back he had lost under Versailles. It linked the USSR with Germany. To avoid
war on two fronts. To deal with USSR. To affect Britain and France.
Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had lost the Polish corridor and Danzig. Hitler wanted these back.
Britain had guaranteed Polands independence. The USSR, Britain and France had been discussing how to
defend Poland. This was a threat to Hitler. Hitler now knew that if he invaded Poland, the USSR would not
stop him. Hitler wanted Polish territory as lebensraum. Needed to avoid being attacked from east and west at
the same time. By linking with USSR, Britain and France would not attack when he went into Poland.
Why did Hitlers demands over Czechoslovakia not lead to War in 1938?
Level 1 (1-3) Expect general description of Munich
Level 2 (4-5)
More detailed description of Munich and motives of Britain and France in avoiding war
Level 3 (6)
All of the above but something from the German side saying that the Generals and the economists were not
ready and warned Hitler that they needed more time.
Why did Britain and France follow a policy of Appeasement in the 1930s?
Public opinion, lack of air force, hatred of war, feeling Versailles had been unjust, middle of Depression not
enough money and concerns at home, British Empire, state of France and lack of stability and military
readiness, absence of USA, Maginot line mentality, Oxford Union vote. Sympathy with Germany etc.
Why was Hitler able to unite Germany with Austria in 1938?

Hitler was able to unite with Austria in 1938 for several reasons. Since coming to power Hitler had built up his
armed forces and achieved success in the Rhineland whilst at the same time noting the failures of the League of
Nations. However, since the abortive putsch of 1934, Hitler had been cautious towards Austria. Nevertheless,
the situation by 1938 was different. In a time of economic depression, the Austrians looked at German
prosperity and wondered if Anschluss would be beneficial for them. In November 1937 Mussolini had told him
that he accepted that Austria was a German country and without Italian support Austria had little chance of
sustaining her independence. Moreover, she could expect little support from Britain either. When Lord Halifax
visited Germany on 19 November 1937, he stated that certain changes in Eastern Europe, could not be avoided
in the long run. Accordingly, Hitler was convinced that Britain would not intervene. The Austrian Nazis were
becoming increasingly disruptive and the Austrian Chancellor, Schuschnigg, had appointed Nazis into his
government to try to appease them. The Austrian Nazis helped Hitler step up his campaign for Anschluss by
30
bombing public buildings and staging mass parades. Hitler sent for the Chancellor and bullied him into giving
more power to the Austrian Nazis. On returning home Schuschnigg changed his mind and ordered a plebiscite.
Hitler was furious and forced his resignation. The Austrian Nazi leader asked Germany to send in troops to
restore order. A plebiscite was held and 99% voted in favour of the Anschluss. Britain and France (not
unusually, was paralysed by a ministerial crisis) did not object as the majority of Austrians seemed pleased with
the union and there was little they could practically do to prevent it. In conclusion, Hitler achieved Anschluss as
Britain and France were no longer prepared to enforce Versailles, countries were preoccupied with the Great
Depression, Italy was no longer willing to guarantee Austrian independence and it appeared that many Austrians
actually welcomed union to improve their economic situation.
Why did Hitler want to unite Germany and Austria?
e.g. He believed the two states belonged together.
e.g. It was the place where Hitler was born. To develop a Greater Germany. To unite German speakers.
They thought they belonged together. To defy the Treaty. Austria was economically weak. Part of his
foreign policy.
e.g. It was linked culturally. There was a strong Nazi Party in Austria, both countries spoke German with 96%
of Austrians speaking German. Hitlers aims as stated in Mein Kampf were to create a Greater Germany and to
overthrow the Treaty of Versailles. Anschluss had been forbidden by the Treaty and so a union would help him
achieve his aims. Austria had experienced economic problems and the union might be of benefit by bringing
them into Greater Germany.
The Austrian Chancellor, Schuschnigg, had appointed Nazis into his government. The Austrian Nazis helped
Hitler step up his campaign by bombing public buildings and staging mass parades. Hitler sent for the
Chancellor and bullied him into giving more power to the Austrian Nazis. On returning home Schuschnigg
changed his mind and ordered a plebiscite. Hitler was furious and forced his resignation. The Austrian Nazi
leader asked Germany to send in troops to restore order.
Balance: 10 marks
The policy of appeasement was a failure. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
The policy of Appeasement was a failure in some senses but not in others. It was a failure as it was a very risky
policy which only encouraged Hitler to press for more land or concessions on Versailles. It allowed Germany to
get stronger; for example after the Anschluss, Germany absorbed the Austrian army and gained valuable mineral
resources. It also allowed him to build and test new weapons in preparation for a wider war. Most importantly, it
alarmed the USSR who could have been a useful ally against Hitler. Due to Appeasement they believed that
Britain and France did not care about them and therefore signed the Nazi-Soviet pact with Hitler in 1939. This
was to trigger war. So appeasement did not stop Hitler or stop a wider war breaking out.
31
However, in many ways the policy of Appeasement was successful. To go to war you need the consent of the
people but the impact of the First World War meant that there was a popular feeling that there must never be
another Great War. This made it difficult for politicians like Winston Churchill who believed that the only way
to avoid this was to stand up to Hitler and Mussolini. Secondly, the economic problems of the interwar years
meant there was government reluctance to spend on defence. Social reform and reducing unemployment was
more important and more popular with the people that standing up to Hitler and spending money on rearming.
Public opinion indicated a wide sense of pacifism and people simply did not want to go to war. People
considered the Empire more important than affairs in Europe so finding a way of appeasing Hitler was
considered vital. In foreign affairs there was widespread sympathy for German calls for revision of Versailles,
while France's reliability and usefulness as an ally were doubted. Between the wars, France was weak and
divided and recovered slowly from the Great Depression. Most importantly, Appeasement brought Britain time.
In 1935 a secret military report advised the government that the navy would be unable to defend the Empire and
support a war in Europe at the same time and that the country was currently incapable of defending itself
against air attack. It advised the government to increase defence spending, improve air defence and avoid a
simultaneous war against Japan, Germany and Italy: by 1939, Britains army and air force were ready for war. If
it wasnt for Appeasement they may well have been beaten if they had stood up to Hitler earlier. Lastly, many
saw Stalin as worse than Hitler, it was better to keep on good terms with Germany as they could be a useful
barrier against Communist expansion, so people, at least at first, thought Appeasement was a good policy.
So, in conclusion Appeasement was a successful policy to a certain extent as it allowed public opinion to harden
and prepare themselves mentally for War and most importantly, it bought time for armed services to prepare
themselves militarily for a confrontation with Hitler. However, it was a failure in many other ways.
Appeasement was about giving in to a bully. The appeasers assumed that if they made concessions to Hitler it
would reduce the chances of war. In fact it encouraged Hitler to demand more. The appeasers assumed Hitler
was a rational politician. They completely misjudged his ruthlessness both to break agreements and use force.
The appeasers missed vital opportunities to stop Hitler, in particular over the Rhineland and by delaying
allowed Hitler time to build up his military strength. In 1938, by abandoning Czechoslovakia, Britain lost a
potentially important ally against Hitler. Lastly, it alarmed the USSR as Hitler made no secret of his plans to
expand eastwards. It sent the message to the Soviet Union that Britain and France would not stand in his way.
At best, Appeasement delayed an inevitable war.
How successful was Hitler in his Foreign Policy?
After 1936 Hitler met with a great deal of success in his foreign policy. He was able to turn his attention to
uniting all Germans and expanding his territory once his western frontier had been secured by the reoccupation
of the Rhineland. In 1937 he was successful in developing closer relations with Italy and Japan which ended
Germanys isolation. He also met with some success in presenting to the democracies the idea that a strong
Germany was their best guarantee against the threat from the USSR. This, plus their natural suspicions of
Stalins intentions, prevented the formation of an effective anti-Nazi bloc as proposed by Stalin on several
occasions. In 1938 he was successful in taking over Austria, with little more than formal protests from France
and Britain and with the agreement of Mussolini. This strengthened Germany had placed her in a strong
position viz a viz the Balkans. That same year he secured the agreement of Chamberlain and Daladier for the
immediate transfer of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany. The democracies even putting
pressure on the Czechs to comply. This weakened fatally the Czech state and increased Stalins suspicions of the
West.
In March 1939 Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia but this was at the cost of antagonising Britain and
France whose policy of appeasement effectively ended at this point when they guaranteed Polands integrity.
Hitlers foreign policy was again successful however when he made the Non-Aggression Pact with the USSR in
August 1939. This pact, or more specifically the Secret Protocol, cleared the way for his attack on Poland in
32
September by removing the threat of a war on two fronts. To this point it could therefore be argued that his
foreign policies had been very successful. However he was now involved in a major war, his intentions had
been revealed (lebensraum as opposed to uniting all Germans) and this had set Germany on a course that was
ultimately to bring disaster.
How far had Hitler achieved his foreign policy aims by the end of 1939?
Level 1 General answer lacking specific contextual knowledge [1] e.g. He had achieved some of his aims
about land.
Level 2 Identifies AND/OR describes achievement/lack of achievement [2]
e.g. Hitler had overturned parts of the Treaty of Versailles. He had gained some Lebensraum in the East. He
had remilitarised the Rhineland. He had achieved Anschluss with Austria. He had not destroyed communism
in the Soviet Union. He had not gained as much Lebensraum in Eastern Europe as he had hoped.
Level 3 Explains achievement OR lack of achievement [35]
e.g. One of Hitlers aims was to overturn the Treaty of Versailles. In March 1933 he announced that the
German peacetime army was to be increased to 300,000. This was in direct defiance of the Treaty which had
limited Germanys army to 100,000 men. Two years later he reintroduced conscription, again defying the
treaty.
OR
e.g. Hitler wanted to gain Lebensraum in Eastern Europe. At the same time he thought he could defeat
communism in the Soviet Union. By 1939 he had not achieved this. In order to take over Poland he had needed
to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact; he was still a long way from taking over the Soviet Union and destroying
communism.
Level 4 Explains achievement AND lack of achievement [57]
To what extent can the outbreak of war in 1939 be blamed upon the failure of the League of Nations?
Explain your answer.
Level 1 Unsupported assertions 1 e.g. 'The League was weak/self-interested.'
'The League of Nations failed to prevent war as it would not take action against countries. 'Germany hated the
Treaty of Versailles.' 'The policy of appeasement just delayed the inevitable.' 'Hitler followed an aggressive
foreign policy.'
33
Level 3 Explains failure of League of Nations OR other reasons 3-5

Level 4 Explains failure of League of Nations AND other reasons 5-7
League of Nations: 'The Great Depression affected the League. Britain did not want to get involved sorting out
international disputes while its economy was suffering. Japan wanted to improve its economy and invaded
Manchuria. Italy invaded Abyssinia.' 'Unemployment in Germany led to the growth of power of the Nazi party
who made no secret of the desire to overthrow the Treaty of Versailles.' 'The League's main weapon was
sanctions. They were unwilling to impose meaningful ones against powerful countries such as Italy.' 'The failure
of the League to act against Japan and Italy led to its demise.' Long-term consequences of peace treaties
'Germany were resentful and were determined to reverse its terms.' 'The impact of the treaties and the Great
Depression brought military extremists to power.' Hitler's policies His rise to power was assisted by his
promise to destroy Versailles Treaty.' 'His desire for "lebensraum" for German people threatened European
peace.' 'Hitler left the League and immediately began to re-arm.' 'In 1936 he re-militarised the Rhineland against
the terms of the Treaty.' 'Treaties with other extremists such as Rome-Berlin Axis, 1936.' 'The Anschluss with
Austria took place in 1938.' 'There then followed the agreement to Hitler's demand for the Sudetenland and
despite the promise of no war Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia.' 'Hitler wanted the Polish corridor
back and invaded Poland.' Britain and France 'The Anglo-German Naval Treaty Of 1935 allowed Germany to
increase its navy, failing to uphold the terms of the Treaty.' 'Britain and France followed a policy of
appeasement but this failed as it allowed Hitler to take what he wanted. It did, however, gain time.' Nazi-Soviet
Pact 'The pact left Britain and France to fight Germany alone. Hitler did not believe they would go to war over
Poland.'
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of to what extent 8-10
How far was the Treaty of Versailles to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939? Explain your answer.
e.g. The Treaty was only partly to blame as there were other reasons.
The German people were unhappy with the Treaty. Appeasement failed. Military extremists gained power.
Hitlers foreign policy. The League of Nations failed. Germany invaded Poland.
Level 3 Explains the impact of the Treaty OR other reasons 3-6
Level 4 Explains the impact of the Treaty AND other reasons 5-7
The Treaty of Versailles: Germany was one of the nations dissatisfied with the Treaty and Hitlers rise to power
was assisted by his promise to destroy the Treaty. The Treaty had taken away the Polish Corridor and Hitler
wanted it back. He invaded Poland. It had reduced the armed forces and navy a symbol of German pride.
Germany had been humiliated by the Treaty as they were forced to accept responsibility. Germans were not
granted self-determination. Hitlers foreign policy Hitlers desire for lebensraum for German people
threatened European peace. He began to re-arm and re-militarised the Rhineland. He first took the
Sudetenland and then the whole of Czechoslovakia. Failure of Appeasement: Britain and France responded to
Hitlers threats with appeasement trying to satisfy German demands to preserve peace but this failed.
Extremists: The impact of the Great Depression brought extremists to power in many countries. Failure of the
34
League of Nations: The League became powerless after failing to deal with events in Manchuria and
Abyssinia.
Level 5 Explains and evaluates how far 8-10
The policy of appeasement was justified. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
War still happened. They were indecisive.
it was right to try to avoid war. Britain was not ready for war. It gave in to a bully. Because of the
Versailles Treaty terms sympathy. It was morally wrong. It misjudged Hitler. Excellent chances to stop
Hitler were missed.
The Treaty of Versailles had been harsh on Germany and it seemed right to try to settle grievances by
negotiation. Britain and France were happy as Hitler was only rightfully getting back what belonged to
Germany. Some people approved of Hitlers policies particularly the way he had reduced unemployment.
Memories of the First World War (Spanish Civil War) were still fresh and it was felt right to avoid another
war. Many liked the idea of a strong Germany as a protection against the USSR. The USSR under Stalin
seemed a greater threat. Rearmament was not complete and it was an opportunity to stall for time. The
British government was trying to deal with the depression and did not want to spend large sums on arms. It
was thought that by giving concessions to Hitler he could be trusted and it would reduce the chances of war.
The appeasers misjudged Hitler treating him as a rational person. In fact it encouraged Hitler to demand more.
The mind of a dictator was misunderstood. It gave Hitler an advantage. He grew stronger and stronger before
war started. Appeasement was wrong it allowed Hitler to break international relations. They were prepared
to give away parts of other countries. Appeasement was simply another word for weakness and cowardice.
By following the policy vital opportunities were missed to stop Hitler such as the remilitarisation of the
Rhineland. By abandoning Czechoslovakia an important ally was lost. It did not work as it did not stop war
in 1939.
Level 5 Explains with evaluation of how far 8-10
How far was the Nazi-Soviet Pact (1939) responsible for causing war in Europe? Explain your answer.
e.g. It was because war followed very quickly.
Level 2 Identifies reasons for war [2-3]
e.g. The Nazi-Soviet Pact gave Hitler a link to the USSR. Germanys developing military strength. Invasion
of Poland. Appeasement did not work. The League of Nations had failed. Isolationist policy of USA.
35
Level 3 Explains Pact or other reasons [3-5]

Level 4 Explains Pact and other reasons [5-7]
Nazi-Soviet Pact Stalin and the USSR were the key to Poland. Hitler was determined to avoid war on two
fronts and was prepared to make an agreement with Stalin. Stalin could also have chosen Britain and France
but thought he would get part of Poland. Hitler could now invade Poland without any interference from
Stalin. The pact left Britain and France to fight Germany alone. Hitler did not believe they would go to war
over Poland. League of Nations The Great Depression affected the League. Britain did not want to get
involved sorting out international disputes while its economy was suffering. Japan wanted to improve its
economy and invaded Manchuria. Italy invaded Abyssinia. The Leagues main weapon was sanctions. They
were unwilling to impose meaningful ones against powerful countries such as Italy. The failure of the League
to act against Japan and Italy led to its demise. Long-term consequences of peace treaties Germany was
resentful and determined to reverse the terms. The impact of the treaties and the Great Depression brought
military extremists to power. Unemployment in Germany led to the growth of power of the Nazi party who
made no secret of the desire to overthrow the T of V. Hitlers policies His rise to power was assisted by his
promise to destroy Versailles Treaty. Hitler left the League and immediately began to re-arm. In 1936 he remilitarised the Rhineland against the terms of the Treaty. There then followed the agreement to Hitlers
demand for the Sudetenland and despite the promise of no war Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. This
could not be justified. Britain and France The Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935 allowed Germany to
increase its navy failing to uphold the terms of the Treaty. B and F followed a policy of appeasement but this
failed as it allowed Hitler to take what he wanted. It did however gain time. They had encouraged Hitler as
they saw him as a barrier to USSR.
War in 1939 was caused more by the Treaty of Versailles than by anything else Do you agree with this
view?
The question is asking to weigh up Versailles as a cause against everything else. So other factors to mention are
Appeasement
Collapse of the League
Hitler Foreign Policy
Nazi Soviet Pact
Great Depression
1.2
3.4
5.6
7.8
8-10
Basic agreement or disagreement with no real evidence.

Agreement with good evidence of Versailles
balance against other factors
Good balance with good detail against other factors.
TWE
Hitler was a gambler rather than a planner in foreign affairs Do you agree with this statement?
Gambler
Rhineland, Munich, Rearmament, watched Abyssinia and the Leagues handling of it.
36
Planner
Hossbach, War economy, Mein Kampf, sacking the generals who did not agree with him, went to war although
threats to him over Poland, Nazi Soviet pact.
Hitlers aggression was the main reason war broke out in 1939 How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer
e.g. The Treaty of Versailles was to blame for the outbreak of war. The weakness of the Allies was to blame.
Level 2 Identifies reasons [23]
e.g. Hitlers aim was to destroy the Treaty of Versailles, which inevitably meant war. The League of Nations
proved to be a failure. The isolationist policy of the USA helped Hitler. Britain and France failed to act over
Hitlers aggressive foreign policy.
Level 3 Explains why Hitlers aggression was to blame OR other reasons [35]
e.g. Hitler left the League, began re-arming, introducing conscription, re-occupied the Rhineland and united
with Austria. These actions demonstrated his determination to increase his power in Europe and avenge the
Treaty of Versailles. Hitler went too far with his aggressive foreign policy. He could not justify the occupation
of Czechoslovakia or Poland. Despite the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Britain had guaranteed to preserve the
independence of Poland. Hitler had finally pushed them to the point at which they had to resist. The British
felt that Germany had been harshly treated at Versailles and began to make concessions. Desperate to avoid war,
Britain and France responded to Hitlers demands with a policy of appeasement. The League of Nations main
weapon was sanctions. They were unwilling to impose meaningful ones against powerful countries such as
Italy. The failure of the League to act against Japan and Italy led to its demise and Hitler noted this. Britain and
France stopped working through the League. Hitler left the League, began re-arming, re-occupied the
Rhineland and united with Austria. This showed his determination to increase his power in Europe and avenge
the Treaty of Versailles, which meant war. Hitler went too far with his aggressive foreign policy. He could not
justify the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Poland. Britain had guaranteed to preserve the independence of
Poland. Hitler had pushed them to war.
Level 4 Explains why Hitlers aggression was to blame AND other reasons [57]
Both sides of Level 3
Level 5 Explains with evaluative judgement of how far (8-10)
The Nazi-Soviet Pact played a greater part in causing war in 1939 than did the policy of appeasement. How
far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (8)
37

Level 2 Identifies impact of one/both [23]
Level 5 Explains with evaluative judgement of how far [8-10]
Although the Nazi-Soviet pact was a key factor in causing war in 1939, it could be argued that it would not have
occurred if Britain and France had abandoned their policy of Appeasement towards Germany. So in many ways,
they both played significant parts.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact was clearly very important. The USSR was alarmed by the threat from Hitler, and that
Britain and France were trying to push him towards the USSR. Hitler made no secret of his plans to expand
eastwards as stated in Mein Kampf and numerous speeches. As far as Hitler was concerned, Stalin and the
USSR was the key to Poland. Hitler was determined to avoid war on two fronts and was prepared to make an
agreement with Stalin. Stalin could also have chosen to ally with Britain and France but thought he would get
part of Poland through the Pact as well as buying time. The Pact was the final cause of war as Hitler could
now invade Poland without any interference from Stalin. Britain and France declared war on Germany as they
had guaranteed Polands independence.
However, it could be argued that Appeasement was a more important cause of war in 1939. Appeasement was
essentially about giving in to a bully. The appeasers assumed that if they made concessions to Hitler it would
reduce the chances of war. In fact it encouraged Hitler to demand more. The appeasers missed vital
opportunities to stop Hitler, in particular over the Rhineland and by delaying confrontation allowed Hitler time
to build up his military strength. He was able to build fortifications in the Rhineland which would make it more
difficult to attack him and by allowing him to increase his military strength from 1935, it became harder and
harder to refuse his demands. When they allowed Anschluss in 1938, Hitler acquired vital troops and raw
materials for his war machine. The appeasers assumed Hitler was a rational politician. They completely
misjudged his ruthlessness both to break agreements and use force and in 1938, by abandoning Czechoslovakia,
Britain lost a potentially important ally against Hitler. By the time of the Czech crisis, Hitler had come to
believe that Britain and France would do nothing to stop him. More dangerously, after Munich, Appeasement
encouraged Hitler to look towards eastern Europe and the USSR: all his aims in Western Europe had been
fulfilled. This worried Stalin as he was not ready for war because of the Purges. To buy time to rearm, Stalin
signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
Therefore in conclusion, although the Nazi Soviet Pact was vital in the coming of war in 1939 as it removed the
last barrier to Hitlers expansion in the east and actually triggered war through the Anglo-French Polish
guarantee, Appeasement had led to this pact to be signed in the first place. Stalin and Hitler would not have
been in a position to sign this treaty in 1939 if Britain and France had stood up to Hitler in 1935, and more
importantly in 1936 over the Rhineland. The Pact came about as a result of Appeasement and therefore the
Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty cannot be seen as such an important cause of War.
38
The Cold War

Describe: 4 marks
What was decided at the Yalta Conference?
How to organise Europe after the war. Attended by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill.
Level 2 Describes what was decided 2-4
Germany was to be split into four zones of occupation as was Berlin. In Eastern Europe countries were to
hold free elections to decide how to be governed. In Poland free elections were to be held. The eastern frontier
was to be returned to the pre-1921 position. A United Nations organisation was to be set up. Once Germany
was defeated the Soviet Union would join the war against Japan.
What was agreed at the Yalta Conference, 1945?
e.g.
How to organise Europe at the end of the War.

Germany was to be split up.
Level 2 Describes what was agreed 2-4

Germany was to be defeated and then disarmed. Germany (Berlin, Austria and Vienna) divided into four
zones of occupation. Germany would have to pay reparations. The zones to be controlled by USA, USSR,
Britain and France. Berlin was to be in Soviet zone. Once Germany defeated, Soviet Union to join war
against Japan. A United Nations Organisation to be set up to keep the peace. As east European Countries
liberated they would be able to hold free elections to set up democratic governments. In Poland free elections
were to be held. Eastern Europe was to be a Soviet sphere of influence.
What was the iron curtain?
A term introduced by Churchill. The idea of west v east. Anything from the source
Level 2 Describes what it was [2-4]
The border between the Soviet-controlled countries and the West. USSR dominated countries following
Potsdam. A guarded border. The mythical division of Europe into two halves. Separation of free democratic
states from communist dominated ones. A denial of freedom and democracy.
What did Stalin gain from the Yalta Conference?
Level 2 Describes gains [24]
39
(One mark for each relevant point; additional mark for supporting detail.)
Stalin gained many things form the Yalta conference. He gained a Soviet zone in Germany and a Soviet zone in
Berlin. It was agreed that eastern Europe would be seen as a Soviet sphere of influence. He achieved his
wishes for changes in the plans for Polands boundaries. Poland would be shifted westwards to the OderNeisse line and Russia would take large territories of eastern Poland that they already occupied. Prisoners of
war from Soviet territories would be returned to the USSR to be dealt with. An agreement was reached that the
USSR could enter the war against Japan in return for territorial gains and an agreement that each country should
have a veto on the decisions of the Security Council was passed which suited Stalin.
Describe how Poland came under communist control
The establishment of communist rule in Eastern Europe followed a general pattern. The Red Army had liberated
the countries from Nazi control and immediately introduced a policy of de-nazification. Communists who had
been educated in the USSR and were loyal to Stalin soon took leading positions within their national parties.
Left wing parties were pressured by the communists to join them in "Popular Fronts" and they soon dominated
national provisional governments by controlling key posts such as Ministers of Justice, Interior (controlling the
police) etc. Once the political system was controlled, a Sovietization of other aspects of life like economy,
culture, land distribution and media could proceed. Formally these satellites retained their full independence but
they were controlled by the USSR. There were two major exceptions in Eastern Europe: Yugoslavia and
Czechoslovakia. In Poland the Peasant Party refused to join the Democratic Front which was requested by the
communists. The party was subjected to harassment and terror and elections in 1947 were manipulated. The
communist controlled "electoral bloc" got more than 90 % support in the elections.
Why? 6 marks
Why was Marshall Aid offered to countries in Europe?
e.g. To help America.
Because of the Containment Policy. To halt communism. To restore economies. To improve trade.
e.g. To help the USA stem the flow of communism which they thought developed through poverty. Truman
did not want to use soldiers; he wanted to attack misery and want. To restore economies affected by war so
as to provide trading opportunities for American companies. Countries struggling to recover from the effects
of war were vulnerable to communist take-over.
Why was Eastern Europe largely in the hands of the USSR by 1946?
e.g.
40
It had been liberated from the Nazis.

Because the Red Army remained in those countries. Because they were occupied by the Soviet Union. To
act as a buffer zone.
Privately Roosevelt and Stalin seemed to accept the other superpowers right to dominate and control their
half of Europe their spheres of influence. Both super powers left Potsdam determined to keep their half of
Europe. These countries had been occupied by the Nazis during the War and had been liberated by the Soviet
Union Red Army. The Soviet Union was determined that these countries remained friendly. The democratic
elections were rigged by Stalin. To ensure that there was a buffer zone against any future attacks from the
West.
Why did tensions between the USSR and the Western Allies increase at the Potsdam conference?

Level 2 Identifies why [24] (One mark for each)
There were many reasons why tension increased at Potsdam. Firstly, the Western leaders had become suspicious
of the activities of the USSR. Soviet troops had liberated countries in Eastern Europe but instead of
withdrawing his troops Stalin had left them there. By the time of the Conference, Stalins troops controlled the
Baltic States. Refugees were fleeing from these states fearing a Communist take-over. Stalin had set up a
Communist government in Poland and other eastern states, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Poles and the
other people of Eastern Europe. Britain and the USA protested but Stalin insisted it was a defensive measure
against possible future attacks. Secondly, Roosevelt had died and had been replaced by Truman who was much
more anti-Communist and suspicious of Stalin. Truman saw Stalins actions as preparations for a Soviet takeover of the rest of Europe and was therefore more aggressive and less willing to compromise. Thirdly, Truman
informed Stalin at the start of the conference that the US had successfully tested an atomic bomb. This created
huge tensions as Stalin claimed that had he known about it, he could have delayed offensives and spared Soviet
lives. He also said that as a close ally it would only have been polite to inform him. Lastly and perhaps most
importantly, the Nazis had been defeated and the common goal; to defeat Germany had been achieved. Without
this common threat there was little reason for them to stay in the Grand Alliance. The greatest tensions would
now emerge over what to do with Germany: whether to split it up completely or to allow it some recovery.
Why by 1946, were the wartime Allies less united? (6)
It was the start of the Cold War. The common enemy was defeated.
The USA and the USSR did not trust each other. It was capitalism versus communism. Disagreement over
Poland. It changed with the death of Roosevelt. The successful testing of an atomic bomb by the USA
41
worried Stalin. The Iron Curtain descending across Europe. The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Aid
annoyed Stalin.
e.g.The USA and the USSR did not trust each other because of their different ideologies, capitalism and
communism. Common enemies, Germany and Japan, had brought the two powers together, but once defeated
the mistrust returned. With the death of Roosevelt, a hardening of the US attitude towards the USSR was
shown by President Truman, especially at Potsdam. Truman felt that Stalin had gone beyond the agreement at
Yalta, especially over Poland. Stalin wanted Poland to be governed by the Lublin Poles, whereas the West
wanted the anti-communist London Poles. It was felt that Stalin was making sure that the USSR was
surrounded by communist governments. This was expressed by Churchill in his Iron Curtain speech. When
Truman made it known that the USA had successfully tested an atomic bomb, this increased the mistrust. Stalin
ordered his scientists to develop a Soviet atomic bomb. This then worried the USA. Rather than allowing free
elections the USSR began to impose Communist rule on the countries it had occupied. Truman was highly
suspicious of Stalins motives. He was much less trusting than Roosevelt had been. Stalin refused to reduce the
size of the Red Army, the biggest in the world. The Western allies accused Stalin of breaking agreements over
Germany. The Western Allies wanted Germany to recover as quickly as possible, realising that it would be a
barrier against Communism. The USSR wanted a weak Germany. Decisions from Yalta were not adhered to,
e.g. Japan.
Explain why the Soviet Union blockaded Berlin.
e.g.
Because Stalin opposed what the allies were doing.

To stop the supply of food and goods. To test resolve. Zones had been combined. To stop people wanting
to change from communism.
Stalin wanted to keep Germany weak so that it would not be a threat to the USSR. Stalin opposed the planned
introduction of a new currency. The soviets were concerned they were trying to create a new Germany that was
wealthier than the Soviet eastern Germany. They wanted the Socialists of Berlin city council to merge with the
communists. This was prevented through western support. They thought the Western Allies had no right to be
in Berlin and saw them as a threat because they had a base in the Soviet Zone and they showed off the capitalist
way of life.
Balance: 10 marks
The Berlin Blockade brought Europe close to war. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
e.g. No, as neither side could afford to cause war.
42
Level 2 Identifies issues [2-3]

There was tension over the zones of occupation. Stalin thought changes were a threat to the Soviet Union. A
new currency was introduced. The West called Stalins bluff. Stalin backed down. NATO was formed.
Level 3 Explains agreement or disagreement [3-5]
Level 4 Explains agreement and disagreement [5-7]
There had been tension since the division of Berlin into zones of occupation as the western zones were
completely surrounded by communist territory. There was a difference over opinion as the West wanted to
help economic recovery whilst Stalin wanted a weak Germany. This was a threat to Soviet security. Stalin cut
road and rail links. If the west tried to break the blockade it could mean war. But they could not afford to given
in to Stalin. The West decided to fly in supplies. This put the ball back in Stalins court. He hoped it would fail
as to fire on the planes would be an act of war. To further discourage Stalin the Americans stationed B29
bombers in Britain putting the Soviet Union within range of the atomic bomb. Stalin had tested the resolve of
the West and failed. NATO was formed and this military organisation was a direct challenge to the Soviet
Union. 1948 was election year in the USA so Truman might have not wanted a war but could not appear to be
soft with the Soviet Union.
Or
Other reasons explained e.g. Marshall Plan, weapons and USSR attitude.
The Soviet Union was to blame for the Cold War. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer.
e.g.
Each side was to blame because they followed different ideas.

Soviet Union and USA did not trust each other. Stalin wanted to spread communism. The Soviet Union
wanted to avoid any future attack. The West was against Communism. Eastern Europe was communist
controlled. USA introduced economic aid. Stalin set up Cominform and Comecon. There was the Berlin
Blockade. The USA had the atomic bomb.
The USA and USSR held different ideologies of capitalism v communism and actions led to suspicion and
hostility. They drifted apart as the war had ended and there was no common enemy. Soviet Union wanted a
weak Germany to avoid any future attack. Following Yalta it was expected that there would be free elections
in eastern Europe countries after their liberation. The Red Army made sure their new governments were
communist controlled.
43
Harmony not helped by politicians such as Churchill and his Iron Curtain speech and Truman who was more
anti-communist than Roosevelt who had got on reasonably well with Stalin. The USA interpreted the Soviet
takeover of eastern Europe as the start of spreading communism around the world. The USA response was the
Truman Doctrine that offered support to any free peoples struggling to avoid communism. The Marshall Plan
was to help the vulnerable European economy suffering from the after effects of war. Stalin refused to allow
Soviet bloc countries to accept aid as he thought the real purpose was for the USA to build up friendships with
European countries. To counter the Marshall Plan Stalin set up Cominform to strengthen cooperation between
communists and Comecon to develop economic cooperation between communist countries.
Level 5 Explains reasons with evaluation of how far 8-10
Might link explanation to lack of trust, lack of willingness to understand each others point of view or the
different ideologies. Candidates may argue that it will depend which sides point of view you accept.
Who was more to blame for starting the Cold War, the USA or the USSR? Explain your answer.

Level 2 Identifies one/both [23]
Level 3 Explains USA OR USSR [35]
Level 4 Explains USA AND USSR [57]
Level 5 Explains with evaluative judgement of more to blame [78]
It could be argued that in some ways, both the USA and the USSR were to blame for the outbreak of the Cold
War.
The Soviet Union must take some blame for starting the Cold War. The West was suspicious of Soviet intentions
in Eastern Europe. Stalin had removed non-Communist leaders in Poland, replacing them with Communists.
Rather than allowing free elections the USSR began to impose Communist rule on the countries it had occupied.
Truman was highly suspicious of Stalins motives and was much less trusting than Roosevelt had been. In
Eastern Europe he believed the Soviet leader intended to set up USSR controlled buffer states. Truman knew
that genuine free elections and the spirit of the Declaration on Liberated Europe would not be carried out.
Stalin refused to reduce the size of the Red Army, the biggest in the world and this only increased tensions. The
Western Allies accused Stalin of breaking agreements over Germany. The Western Allies wanted Germany to
recover as quickly as possible, realising that it would be a barrier against Communism. The USSR wanted a
weak Germany. The USA interpreted the Soviet takeover of eastern Europe as the start of spreading
communism around the world and responded with the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan which was to help
the vulnerable European economy suffering from the after effects of war. The USSR saw this as a threat. Stalin
must take the major blame for the first aggressive post war act: the blockading of Berlin between 1948 and
1949. He also set up Stalin set up Cominform and Comecon which were considered as attempts to undermine
the west.
However, the USA must take some of the blame as well. Stalin was annoyed with the USA because Truman had
not informed him of the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. Stalin was convinced the US would use the bomb to
gain world-wide power and so started work on producing one. This caused the USA to feel threatened. Stalin
refused to allow Soviet controlled countries to accept aid as he thought the real purpose was for the USA to
build up friendships with European countries so they could be controlled by the USA. The fact that the USA had
the atom bomb encouraged Stalin to rush through the Soviet response and the arms race had started. European
countries set up NATO to help each other if attacked by Stalin. Stalin considered this as a threat. Churchills
44
Iron Curtain speech in 1946 can also be seen as aggressive on the part of the USA and was a virtual call to
arms by the West against their former ally.
In conclusion, the issue of who was to blame for the Cold War is so complex that it is difficult to blame one side
or the other. The factors which led to the Cold War are as follows; the personalities of the leaders, the
conflicting beliefs of the superpowers, Stalins take-over of Eastern Europe, the desire for security felt by the
USSR, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the Atom Bomb. We can see that when these factors are
taken together, there was bound to be some sort of breakdown but no-one was definitely to blame. As two major
ideologically opposing superpowers had emerged from WWII, it could be said that some sort of confrontation
was inevitable. If anything, you could say that the Soviets were more to blame, they created a system which was
based on a desire to destroy capitalism and in most cases; it seems as if the west were only responding to
Stalins unreasonable actions and aggression in Europe after the war. However, the suspicion of each power was
so deep that it is difficult to totally blame one side or the other for the start of the Cold War.
The Marshall Plan was more important than the Berlin Blockade in increasing Cold War tension How far
do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
e.g. They were equally important.
e.g. The Marshall Plan was aimed directly at communism. Stalin forbade communist states from accepting
Marshall Aid. Stalin saw the Doctrine and Aid as enslaving Europe. The West saw the Blockade as a test
case. It cost the West vast sums to resist the Blockade. It led to West Germany and NATO.
Level 3 Explanation of the Marshall Plan OR the Berlin Blockade [35]
e.g. The USA interpreted the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe as the start of spreading communism around
the world and responded with the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan which was to help the vulnerable
European economy suffering from the after effects of war. The USSR saw this as a threat. Trumans offer of
aid enabled countries to prosper but it was of benefit to the USAs trade. Stalin prevented Eastern European
countries from being involved, accusing the US of fostering self-interest.
OR
e.g. The Soviets introduced a blockade but the West defeated this by flying in supplies, resulting in Stalin
backing down. Stalin responded by turning their zone into the GDR. Germany was divided even more firmly
and relations between East and West worsened. A direct result of the Berlin Blockade was the formation of
NATO and this was a serious challenge to Stalin.
Level 4 Explanation of the Marshall Plan AND the Berlin Blockade [57]
45
The Soviet Union was to blame for the Cold War. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
Each side was to blame because they followed different ideas.
Soviet Union and USA did not trust each other. Stalin wanted to spread communism. The Soviet Union
wanted to avoid any future attack. The West was against Communism. Eastern Europe was communist
controlled. USA introduced economic aid. Stalin set up Cominform and Comecon. There was the Berlin
Blockade. The USA had the atomic bomb.
The USA and USSR held different ideologies of capitalism v communism and actions led to suspicion and
hostility. They drifted apart as the war had ended and there was no common enemy. Soviet Union wanted a
weak Germany to avoid any future attack. Following Yalta it was expected that there would be free elections
in eastern Europe countries after their liberation. The Red Army made sure their new governments were
communist controlled. Harmony not helped by politicians such as Churchill and his Iron Curtain speech and
Truman who was more anti-communist than Roosevelt who had got on reasonably well with Stalin. The USA
interpreted the Soviet takeover of eastern Europe as the start of spreading communism around the world. The
USA response was the Truman Doctrine that offered support to any free peoples struggling to avoid
communism. The Marshall Plan was to help the vulnerable European economy suffering from the after effects
of war. Stalin refused to allow Soviet bloc countries to accept aid as he thought the real purpose was for the
USA to build up friendships with European countries. To counter the Marshall Plan Stalin set up Cominform
to strengthen cooperation between communists and Comecon to develop economic cooperation between
communist countries.
Level 5 Explains reasons with evaluation of how far 8-10
Might link explanation to lack of trust, lack of willingness to understand each others point of view or the
different ideologies. Candidates may argue that it will depend which sides point of view you accept. them as a
threat because they had a base in the Soviet Zone and they showed off the capitalist way of life.
Only Stalin of the Allies achieved what he wanted as a result of the war with Germany. Do you agree?
e.g.
This is true as far as America was concerned.
Level 2 Identifies achievements 2-3

Each had their spheres of influence. Stalin felt he had greater protection. The west feared the growth of
communism.
46

The Soviet Union ensured that every country in eastern Europe had a government that was communist and
sympathetic to the Soviet Union. The control of eastern Europe ensured that it acted as a buffer zone to
prevent the Soviet Union being attacked. In Poland Stalin wanted the Lublin Poles to have control. This had
happened by 1945. Britain and America wanted to support free peoples by resisting communism but had to
resort to the idea of containment. America thought that western Europe was ripe for communism and
encouraged them to remain democratic by sending Marshall Aid to rebuild their economies.
47
Cuba and Vietnam

Describe:4
What was the Ho Chi Minh Trail?
'A route named after the leader of North Vietnam.' 'A link route.'
Level 2 Describes what it was 2-4
'A network of tracks for bicycles, trucks and tanks.' 'It was the supply route from north to South Vietnam.' 'It
passed through Laos and Cambodia.' 'It was used to move troops from North Vietnam after 1964.' 'They were
jungle tracks.' A route between North and South Vietnam.
Examiners comment
Some candidates were unaware of the precise nature of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, often equating it with a railway.
Describe the Bay of Pigs incident.
It was a disaster. It was a landing at the Bay of Pigs.
Level 2 Describes the incident 2-4
The USA decided to support those Cuban exiles forced out by Castro. The exiles received training and
weapons from the CIA. Kennedy supported an invasion by these exiles. They intended to establish a base in
Cuba. There was no popular uprising and the exiles were easily killed or captured by the larger Cuban forces.
Although not directly implicated, Kennedy was humiliated.
What did the Geneva Agreements of 1954 decide about the future of Vietnam?
The Geneva Agreements decided that Vietnam should be split along the 17th parallel. It was also decided that
Vietminh forces would pull out of South Vietnam and French forces would pull out of North Vietnam. North
Vietnam would be controlled by Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam would be ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem. Free
elections would be held in Vietnam by July 1956 to decide how the country would be re-unified. Laos and
Cambodia would gain their independence from France and Indo-China as a colonial territory would effectively
cease to exist.
Describe the USAs response up to 1961 to Castros takeover of Cuba.
e.g. It took action to bring Castro into line. To starve Castro into submission.
Level 2 Describes response [2-4]
48
The USA banned the buying of sugar. The USA banned all trade with Cuba. Diplomatic relations were cut
off. Kennedy supported an attempted invasion by Cuban exiles. The exiles were trained by the CIA and
received weapons from them. The invasion was a disaster and Kennedy was humiliated. Allow up to two
marks for description of Bay of Pigs incident.
Why? 6 marks
Why did the USA find it impossible to defeat the Vietcong?
'Because they were fighting in their own country.'
'Because of the difficulty of the terrain.' 'Because of guerrilla warfare.' 'It was difficult to find the enemy.'
'The Vietcong continued to receive supplies from North Vietnam and China down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.'
'The Vietcong fought a guerrilla war. They came out of the jungle and carried out acts of sabotage or sudden
ambushes or booby traps. The American soldiers lived in constant fear of surprise attack and this affected
morale. 'They had the support of most locals and were easily absorbed back into village life.' 'The Americans
were unable to distinguish between villagers and Vietcong members.' 'In the jungle the Vietcong built extensive
networks of tunnels where they had storehouses, workshops, kitchens and hospitals. These were very difficult to
find and destroy.' 'To get security.' 'To try to keep the peace.' 'To promote respect for human rights.'
Why did Johnson increase American involvement in Vietnam?
Level 1 General answer [1] e.g. To offer protection.
Level 2 Identifies why [24] e.g. To be re-elected. To enforce American policy. A warship was attacked.
He was given power Congress.
In August 1964, South Vietnamese commandos helped by the US warship Maddox attacked North Vietnamese
radar stations. The Maddox was then supposedly attacked by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. There were
no losses. The captain of the Maddox then reported he had been attacked. This was known as the Gulf of
Tonkin incident. As an election was imminent Johnson wanted to get tough on communism. Johnson ordered
American planes to bomb North Vietnam naval bases. Congress then gave him power to do anything
necessary to defend freedom in South East Asia. This was known as The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In
February 1965 the Vietcong attacked American air bases at Pleiku. Johnson ordered Operation Rolling
Thunder and in March sent American ground forces to protect American air bases. The short term cause was
therefore the incident in the Tonkin Gulf but the longer term reason for involvement was the USAs long
standing commitment to Containment. By 1964, Johnson believed that the South Vietnamese regime alone
could not stop the South from falling to the VC and North, and that it would be necessary for US troops to
support them. Previous presidents had failed but Johnson saw increased military presence as the answer. That is
why he increased American involvement in Vietnam.
49
Why did the USSR install missile bases in Cuba?

To give support.
To threaten the USA. To extend communism. To show strength.
Following the Bay of Pigs incident Castro felt he required more support to defend Cuba against possible
American attack. To force the USA to bargain to remove their missiles from Turkey. To threaten the USA by
placing missiles as close as possible to the USA in their own back yard. To prevent the USA from invading
Cuba. To test Americas resolve - communism v containment.
Why was the USA concerned about Soviet Missiles in Cuba?
e.g. Because they were too close.
e.g. They were close, and therefore a threat to the USA. Communism could spread. A nuclear attack could
be imminent. Because of the sphere of influence. It gave strength to Cuba. It was a challenge to Kennedy.
It was a threat to world peace.
If the bases became operational much of the USA would be brought in range of a Soviet missile attack. It
increased the fear of the spread of communism in the region where Cuba had already become communist.
When they were found the most advanced were within seven days of being capable of launching missiles.
Because they felt that Khrushchev was gaining the upper hand being so close and that the missile gap was
closing. The USSR wanted bargaining power to get the USA to remove its missiles from
Turkey. It was a threat to US supremacy in the arms race.
Balance 10 marks
How successful was American foreign policy towards Cuba and Vietnam? Explain your answer
Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1] e.g. Not very as they failed to achieve what they wanted.
Level 2 Identifies success AND/OR failure [23]
It failed as Cuba remained Communist. It was successful in Cuba as war was averted. It failed as Vietnam
returned to Communism.
Level 3 Explains success OR failure [35]
50
Level 4 Explains success AND failure [57]

(To gain 7 marks candidates must use both Cuba and Vietnam.)
Level 5 Evaluation of how successful [8-10]
The US foreign policy in Cuba and Vietnam was successful in some ways but not others.
In Cuba it was not successful as despite various efforts such as the Bay of Pigs in 1961, assassination attempts
to oust Castro, military maneuvers and the withdrawal of trade, Cuba remained a Communist country dependent
on Soviet aid and protection. On the other hand, the US policy in Cuba was successful as Kennedy increased his
reputation at home and worldwide by avoiding war during the Missile Crisis in 1962 and forcing Khrushchev to
back down. This was the beginning of Khrushchevs fall from power so the perception inside the USSR was that
they had lost the Crisis. Although Cuba would remain Communist as the US pledged never to invade, they had
prevented missiles from being placed in their back yard. Furthermore, this increased pressure on the USSR to
close the Missile gap. However, the US policy of containment completely failed in Vietnam and as a
consequence, the Truman Doctrine effectively ended. Vietnam was reunified as a communist country in 1975,
followed by Communist takeovers in Cambodia and Laos. Thousands of veterans suffered psychological effects
and the US economy was ruined for a decade. The former lands of Indo-China suffered enormously. There was
the mass destruction of North Vietnam from bombing, chemical poisoning of the land and millions of dead. In
Cambodia, the genocide was responsible for a further 2 million dead. Ironically, intervention in Vietnam may
have increased the chances of the dominoes falling. Therefore to some extent US foreign policy was
successful in Cuba but it failed completely in Vietnam, only delaying the inevitable Communist takeover by 20
years. It is clear that US policy failed overall for if it had been successful they would never have abandoned it
following the Vietnam War! The US would adopt the new, less aggressive policy of Dtente in the 1970s and
improved relations were underway with Cold War tensions beginning to ease.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was not as serious as it appeared at the time. Do you agree? Explain your answer.
e.g.
Yes it was, as it increased world tension.
Level 2 Describes the crisis 2-3

A US spy plane took pictures which showed missile bases being built in Cuba. Soviet ships sailing towards
America had on board missiles for the new bases. Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy on two occasions.
It was serious as it brought to two super powers to the brink of nuclear war. If the bases being built in Cuba
became operational, much of the USA would be brought in range of Soviet Missile attack. Most of the
developed sites could be ready to fire within seven days. It was estimated that within minutes of firing 80
million Americans would be dead. US placed a naval blockade around Cuba. What was to have happened
when the Soviet ships reached the blockade? Kennedy decided to ignore the second letter demanding that the
US remove its missiles from Turkey. To accept would have made Kennedy look weak. He took the chance of
just replying to the first letter accepting the offer and the Soviets began to dismantle the bases. It might be
argued that it was just a risky strategy with the Soviets testing the resolve of America, to trap the USA into
51
being drawn into a nuclear war or just to get the upper hand in the arms race. Kennedy faced pressure from
different groups in his own country. Some wanted swift military action and others suggested caution. It might be
argued he was in a no win situation.
How far was the US public opinion the most important reason for America's withdrawal from Vietnam?
e.g.
'It was because people saw what was happening.'

'America were not winning.' 'The war was extremely costly.' 'A lot of people were killed.'
'Public opinion was changing. The war was very costly in terms of military supplies and yet the Vietcong could
still attack Saigon.' 'This was the first televised war and American people were horrified at the barbaric nature of
American attacks an example being My Lai.' 'As more and more soldiers returned in body bags or were
considered to be on drugs, public opinion turned.' 'It led to open criticism of Johnson -"Hey, Hey, LBJ, how
many kids did you kill today.' 'The Tet Offensive highlighted the cost of war. There were nearly 500,000 troops
in Vietnam and America was spending $20 billion a year yet little impression was being made and the Vietcong
were able to launch major offensives.' 'The Media had a significant impact. It showed children being burned by
napalm and people in villages massacred.' 'The policy of search and destroy, bombing and the use of chemical
weapons failed and Johnson changed the policy after the Tet Offensive as he realised the war could not be won
militarily. A policy of Vietnamisation was adopted.'
There was never any real risk of war over Cuba. How far do you agree withthis statement? Explain your
answer.
e.g. I agree it was just a test of strength.
Level 2 Identifies intentions [2-3]
A risky Soviet Strategy. So Khrushchev could bargain. So Khrushchev could test the USA. So the USA
would start a war. Khrushchev wanted the upper hand. Cuba had asked for help. USA needed to avoid
warlike actions. USA could do nothing. He could blockade.
Level 3 Explains agreement or disagreement [3-5]
Level 4 Explains agreement and disagreement [5-7]
52
e.g. Soviet Motives Khrushchev wanted the missiles to bargain. He could then agree to remove them in return
for some American concessions such as the missiles in Turkey. In the context of a strained Cold War the
missiles were designed to see how strong the Americans really were. Would they back off or face the issue?
It was a risky strategy if Khrushchev wanted to trap America and draw them into a nuclear war. The Soviet
Union wanted to ensure that the USA did not launch the first strike. It was a genuine attempt to defend Cuba at
the request of Castro. USA Defence Kennedy would not need to do anything as he had the greater nuclear
capability and he should therefore not over-react. If the USA were seen to back down it could be seen as a sign
of weakness and hand the initiative to the Soviets. If he attacked to destroy the bases it could be seen as an act
of war and cause a nuclear war. By blockading he stopped the military supply to Cuba and put the onus back
on Khrushchev. Kennedy was under pressure from different groups in his own administration who wanted
different approaches. It might be argued he was in a no win situation.
53

History

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

History

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Selected Mark schemes and model answers

The Paris Peace Settlement.

Level 1/1 mark

Level 2 Describes restrictions [2-4]

'It was unfair/harsh.

Level 2 Identifies why 2-4

The Germans were particularly angered by the war guilt clause

Level 2 Identifies why 2-4

Why did the aims of the Big Three at Versailles differ?

'It was because it ensured fighting ended.'

hostilities breaking out again.''The agreed armistice terms

At the time the Treaty of Versailles was created, many countries

international police force. However, the harshness of many of

Was the Treaty of Versailles fair? Explain your answer

Level 1 Unsupported assertions 1

Level 5 Explains with evaluation 8

The League of Nations.

e.g. People were killed.

What were the aims of the League of Nations?

Why was Japan interested in Manchuria?

Level 1 General answer [1]

Level 2 Identifies why 2-4

Level 2 Identifies areas of disputes 2-3

Level 5 Explains with evaluation of how successful [8-10]

Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1]

Level 2 Identifies reasons 2-3

The origins of WWII.

Level 1 General answer [12]

Level 2 Describes impact 2-4

For the Saar:

Why did Britain go to war over Poland?

To stop opposition. To regain territory. To build a relationship.

Level 2 identifies why 2-4

Level 1 General answer [1]

Level 3 Explains failure of League of Nations OR other reasons 3-5

Level 3 Explains Pact or other reasons [3-5]

Basic agreement or disagreement with no real evidence.

Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1]

Level 5 Explains with evaluative judgement of how far [8-10]

The Cold War

How to organise Europe at the end of the War.

Level 2 Describes what was agreed 2-4

It had been liberated from the Nazis.

Level 2 Identifies why 2-4

Level 1 General answer [1]

Because Stalin opposed what the allies were doing.

Level 2 Identifies why 2-4

Level 2 Identifies issues [2-3]

Each side was to blame because they followed different ideas.

Level 2 Identifies reasons 2-3

Level 1 Unsupported assertions [1]

This is true as far as America was concerned.

Level 2 Identifies achievements 2-3

Level 3 Explains agreement OR disagreement 3-6

Cuba and Vietnam

Why did the USSR install missile bases in Cuba?

Level 4 Explains success AND failure [57]

Yes it was, as it increased world tension.

Level 2 Describes the crisis 2-3

'It was because people saw what was happening.'

Level 2 Identifies reasons 2-3

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen