the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question
the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question
the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts.
Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).
Marks must be awarded positively:
marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme.
credit is given for valid answers which go beyond the scope of the syllabus and mark scheme, referring to your Team Leader as appropriate
marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do
marks are not deducted for errors
marks are not deducted for omissions
answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these features are specifically assessed by the question as indicated by the mark scheme. The meaning, however, should be unambiguous.
Rules must be applied consistently, e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed instructions or in the application of generic level descriptors.
Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question (however; the use of the full mark range may be limited according to the quality of the candidate responses seen).
Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should not be awarded with grade thresholds or grade descriptors in mind.
Assessment objectives
AO1: An ability to recall, select, organise and deploy knowledge of the syllabus content.
AO2: An ability to construct historical explanations using an understanding of:
cause and consequence, change and continuity, similarity and difference.
the motives, emotions, intentions and beliefs of people in the past.
Table A: Marks for AO1 and AO2 for part (b) of each question.
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
Level 0: No creditable response. 0 marks
Table B: Marks for AO1 and AO2 for part (c) of each question.
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’ . 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
Level 0: No creditable response. 0 marks
SECTION A: CORE CONTENT
Question 1 (a): What were the Carbonari?
One mark for each relevant point.
A secret revolutionary society.
It supported Italian nationalism.
It took part in the failed revolution of 1820.
It wanted a constitutional government.
It was divided into small secret cells across Italy.
It was anti-clerical.
It took part in the 1831 uprisings.
It was gradually replaced by Young Italy.
Question 1 (b): Why was the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 important for Italian unification?
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
It was important because it took Italy one step closer to complete unification. Italy had agreed that if Prussia and Austria went to war, then Italy would declare war on Austria. If Prussia won, Italy would be given Venetia as a reward. Although Italy was defeated by Austria on the battlefield, Prussia still defeated Austria and in the Peace of Prague Venetia was given to Italy.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Italy was given Venetia.
Only Rome was now needed for complete unification.
It took Italian unification one step closer to completion.
The Prussians defeated Austria when Italy could not manage it.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
This war was a terrible one. It was decided at the Battle of Königgrätz where thousands were killed. However, during the war Italy was defeated by Austria.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 1 (c): Garibaldi vs Others in Italian Unification
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
Cavour was more important than Garibaldi. Garibaldi defeated the Kingdom of Naples but he was seen as an unreliable figure. Who was going to govern the south of Italy and indeed a unified Italy? His strength was in fighting battles and inspiring people. However, Cavour understood that the only way of unifying Italy was under Piedmont which would bring stability and law and order to the new country. He made use of Garibaldi but it was Cavour who actually engineered unification.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
Garibaldi was essential to unification being achieved. In 1860 he took ‘The Thousand’ over to Sicily which he conquered. He then returned to the mainland and took over the Kingdom of Naples. To conquer the south of Italy like this was a remarkable achievement. He contributed to Italian unification by then handing over his conquests to Victor Emmanuel. This almost completed unification, leaving just Rome and Venetia. Without Garibaldi, the Kingdom of Naples may never have fallen. He was also an inspirational figure and won a lot of people over to the cause of unification.
Cavour was more important than Garibaldi. He contributed to unification in a less spectacular way than Garibaldi but was, in fact, more important. He realised that there was no way Austria could be expelled from Italy without outside help. At Plombières he agreed with Napoleon III to engineer a war with Austria which could then lead to forcing Austria out of Italy. Although Napoleon pulled out of the war early, Cavour did win Lombardy for Piedmont. Later he managed to stop Garibaldi invading the Papal States and used the Piedmontese army to occupy it. This basically meant that Italy was unified under Piedmont.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Garibaldi defeated the Kingdom of Naples.
Garibaldi handed over large parts of Italy to Piedmont.
Garibaldi inspired people to support the cause of unification.
Cavour achieved Napoleon’s support.
Cavour won Lombardy for Piedmont.
Cavour used Garibaldi to achieve unification.
Napoleon’s contribution was essential.
Cavour was only interested in extending Piedmont’s power and territories.
Cavour tried to stop Garibaldi conquering the south.
Mazzini inspired people with the idea of unification.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
Garibaldi achieved much towards unification but he was not the only person involved. Cavour was also important as was Mazzini. I think it was the three of them together that were most important.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 2 (a): What was the issue of the Spanish succession, 1868–70?
One mark for each relevant point.
Queen Isabella was overthrown by a revolution.
The issue was – who should succeed her?
Prince Leopold, related to the Prussian royal family, was offered the throne.
France was suspicious of this.
Bismarck persuaded William I to accept for Leopold.
The French angrily protested.
Leopold withdrew.
France demanded that William officially announce the withdrawal.
Bismarck altered a telegram from William to Napoleon so that it appeared insulting to the French.
France declared war on Prussia.
Question 2 (b): Why was the meeting between Austria and Prussia in Olmütz in 1850 important?
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
This meeting was important because it showed Austria was gaining strength in Germany at the expense of Prussia. Both countries wanted to lead Germany and they had their own plans. Prussia led the Erfurt Parliament and Austria led the Frankfurt Diet. In 1850 they clashed about which one should deal with a problem in Hesse-Cassel. The meeting in Olmütz was to sort this out. Prussia backed down and agreed to abandon its plan for a Prussian Union. This was important because it showed that Austria was gaining strength in Germany, not Prussia.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Prussia agreed to abandon the plan for a Prussian Union.
It avoided war between Prussia and Austria.
Prussians were very annoyed at having to back down.
It was agreed to hold a conference at Dresden in 1851.
It led to the re-establishment of the German Confederation.
It led to Austria and Prussia cooperating again.
It showed Austria was becoming strong in Germany again.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
It was an important meeting between Austria and Prussia. They managed to sort out a lot of problems in Germany at that time.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 2 (c): Bismarck vs Nationalism in German Unification
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
I think that the two complemented each other. Bismarck did not start out as a nationalist. His main aim was to make Prussia the strongest country in Germany, even in Europe. However, after the defeat of Austria and the formation of the North German Confederation, his aims and those of the nationalists began to overlap. Nationalists saw that Bismarck could unify Germany through brute strength and threw their support behind him. Hatred of France also united them. The nationalists feared France and thought that only a united Germany could stand up against it.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
German nationalism was very important. Even after the failure of 1840 the dream of a unified Germany remained strong, although it had changed in character. It was no longer a romantic idea but a realistic ambition based on the idea of Prussia providing the strength to lead it. The National Association was formed to promote this idea. In the north of Germany nationalism was strong among the educated middle class, a group that no one, not even Bismarck, could ignore.
Unification was brought about by Bismarck. The rivalry to lead Germany was between Austria and Prussia. By engineering the war with Austria, Bismarck was able to get rid of Austria as a rival. He also set up the North German Confederation which united north Germany under Prussian leadership and was a big step towards unification. He then tricked France into declaring war. There was much anti-French feeling in Germany already and this led to all German states fighting under Prussian leadership. As soon as France was defeated, the German Empire was set up and Bismarck had brought it about.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Nationalism was a powerful force amongst the German middle classes.
Nationalists began to see that Bismarck could bring them unification.
Economic and transport links were making nationalism stronger.
Bismarck needed the support of Prussian Liberals.
Bismarck brought about the defeat of Austria.
Bismarck set up the North German Confederation.
It was Bismarck’s policies that led to the defeat of France and the southern states joining a unified Germany.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
I think they were both very important. They supported each other. I do not think unification could have been achieved if one of them was missing.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 3 (a): Describe how President Grant supported Reconstruction.
One mark for each relevant point.
He signed the Fifteenth Amendment which guaranteed universal male suffrage, including black Americans.
The Force Acts helped defeat the Ku Klux Klan.
His laws of 1871 strengthened the federal government’s ability to deal with terrorism against black Americans.
The 1875 Civil Rights law banned racial discrimination in public transport and stopped black Americans from being excluded from jury service.
The concept of ‘civil rights’ was established during his presidency.
Question 3 (b): Why did the acquisition of new territories in the first half of the nineteenth century create problems for US governments?
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
The main reason why new territories caused problems was slavery. When territories applied to become members of the Union, the crucial question for most people was: will they be a slave state or a free state? The North thought that making new states slave states was a way of spreading slavery, while the South thought that making new states free states was a way of killing off slavery. The 1850 Compromise was an attempt to find a way around this when Southern states started to threaten to secede. For example, California was added as a free state, while Utah and New Mexico could decide for themselves.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
The main problem was slavery.
Abolitionists thought acquiring new land was simply a way of spreading slavery.
Americans were divided over whether the US should acquire the whole of the continent.
Some Americans thought some of the acquisitions represented imperialism.
The Louisiana Purchase was regarded by some as unconstitutional.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
Some Americans thought that having more territory would simply bring more problems for the USA to sort out.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 3 (c): The Defeat of the South in the Civil War
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
I do not think the South’s defeat was a surprise or not a surprise. When the war started, both sides had their strengths and weaknesses and either side could have won. The fact that the war lasted so long and so many men were killed shows that. The North had greater resources but also had to conquer enormous areas of land. The South was fighting for its way of life and had victories at the beginning. Either side could have won.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
It was not a surprise. This was because of the far greater resources of the North. The North had more men, more money and much larger industrial resources to produce armaments. It had the resources to keep going longer than the South and most people in the North were able to live their lives as normal, largely unaffected by the war. This helped keep the North’s will and morale going. At the same time, much of the South was being ravaged and this led to a fall in morale in the South.
The defeat of the South was a surprise. When the war started, many people thought it had a good chance to win and indeed it did well in the first part of the war. The men were fighting for something that was dear to them – their culture, their liberty and their way of life – and so they fought bravely. Also, the North had to conquer huge amounts of territory to win. However, they should have managed their resources much better. The main mistake was to print too much money and causing inflation which damaged the South’s economy and lowered morale. The South could have done much better if Lee had not focused just on Virginia. He neglected the West and so lost the war.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
The greater resources of the North.
The North had a lot more money.
The North did not suffer much from the war.
Many Northerners experienced prosperity during the war.
The North was never invaded in a serious way.
The South had its cotton exports.
The South did well at first – the victory at Bull Run.
The South might have got support from Europe.
The North had a much better navy.
The soldiers of the South were highly motivated.
The soldiers of the North were fighting to save the Union.
It was very difficult to blockade the South’s coast.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
I think it was a surprise because the people of the South thought they could win, otherwise they would not have gone to war.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 4 (a): Describe the role of the United States in Cuba between the Treaty of Paris (1898) and 1906.
One mark for each relevant point.
When the war finished, the US announced that it would rule Cuba.
1899 – US military government set up.
Cubans surprised and disappointed by US actions.
Elections for delegates to a Cuban convention (most sponsored by the US).
The Platt Amendment – US would depart if US kept military bases and could intervene when it wanted.
Republic of Cuba established.
1902 – elections held and first president of Republic of Cuba chosen.
US army left in 1902.
1906 – US occupied Cuba after a rebellion.
Question 4 (b): Why did the Spanish-American War break out in 1898?
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
This war broke out because of the sinking of the USS Maine. This was a US battleship that was in Havana harbour. It had been sent to protect US citizens and property. US newspapers claimed that the Spanish blew up the battleship and this put a lot of pressure on US President McKinley to go to war against Spain.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Spain’s repressive behaviour towards Cubans.
Reporting of Spanish repression in US newspapers.
Cuban struggle for independence.
Popular demand for US intervention.
The sinking of the USS Maine.
US demanded withdrawal of Spanish troops from Cuba.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
The war did not last long. It was all over in a few months and was very one-sided. The US got what it wanted from the war.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 4 (c): Leopold II’s Rule in the Congo vs European Imperialism in Africa
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
Although Leopold treated the Congo in a similar way that European countries treated their territories in terms of exploiting the natural resources, they were not similar overall. Leopold’s motives were simply to make a fortune, strip everything he could from the Congo and put nothing back. Other countries, although they regarded themselves as superior to Africans, did think they had a duty to put something back and provided education and medical care for Africans. Leopold’s attitude was fundamentally different.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
Leopold owned the Congo Free State as a private individual. His treatment of the Africans was terrible. They worked for him producing rubber, but if they did not produce their quota they were mutilated or murdered. Leopold just sucked the Congo dry by taking ivory and rubber and by putting nothing back. Millions of Congolese were killed or mutilated. His rule was not typical of European imperialism at the time. Not all imperialism was about exploitation. Some Europeans had good motives: for example, missionaries and others who set up hospitals for Africans as well as schools which started to bring education to Africa. They also brought industry to Africa which sometimes improved the standard of living of Africans as well as introducing things such as banking.
Leopold’s rule was typical in some ways. He exploited the Congo and made a fortune by taking ivory and rubber. Other European countries also took Africa’s natural resources to make themselves rich. They took raw materials from Africa very cheaply and then exported the finished products at expensive prices. In fact, Europe made a fortune out of the natural resources of Africa just like Leopold did.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Both exploited Africa.
Both regarded Africans as inferior.
Both thought they had a right to take over parts of Africa.
Both wanted to make money out of Africa.
Leopold put nothing back; other Europeans did.
Other Europeans felt a duty towards Africans.
Other Europeans spread Christianity.
Other Europeans built transport systems and schools.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
Leopold’s treatment of the Africans in the Congo was terrible. It caused an international outcry. He was not typical of European countries and how they ruled their land in Africa.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 5 (a): What land did Germany lose in the Treaty of Versailles?
One mark for each relevant point.
Upper Silesia.
West Prussia, Posen, Polish Corridor.
Memel.
Danzig.
North Schleswig.
Alsace-Lorraine.
Saarland.
Eupen, Malmedy, Moresnet.
Hultschin.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
Overseas colonies.
Question 5 (b): Why were Lloyd George and Clemenceau suspicious of Wilson’s Fourteen Points?
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Lloyd George was suspicious of Wilson’s Fourteen Points because one of his main concerns was protecting the British Empire. He wanted to treat Germany more harshly than suggested in the Fourteen Points. He wanted the German navy to be destroyed and Germany’s colonies to be taken away. This was so that they could not be a threat to the British Empire.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
Lloyd George and Clemenceau were more interested in the self-interest of their own countries.
Lloyd George was not keen on self-determination because of the British Empire.
Lloyd George wanted Germany to be punished harshly over its navy and colonies.
Lloyd George wanted Germany’s colonies.
Lloyd George was not keen on the idea of freedom of the seas.
Lloyd George wanted reparations to be added to the Fourteen Points.
Lloyd George did not want complete disarmament because of the British navy.
Clemenceau was not keen on self-determination, for example, his demands over the Rhineland.
Clemenceau wanted German colonies handed over to France.
Clemenceau wanted Germany punished more harshly than suggested in the Fourteen Points.
Clemenceau did not want complete disarmament because he wanted France to be able to defend itself.
The Fourteen Points were based on ideals, but Lloyd George and Clemenceau had to deal with practicalities.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
The Fourteen Points were designed to stop a war in the future.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 5 (c): Economic vs Political Consequences of the Treaty of Versailles
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
The economic consequences were very serious. Many people ended up in poverty and others lost all their savings. However, the political consequences of the treaty were worse. This was because events like the Kapp Putsch and the Munich Putsch actually threatened the Weimar Republic and the former nearly brought it down, especially when the army refused to save the government. This is why the political consequences mattered more.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
The economic consequences were more important. Germany had to pay enormous reparations and in 1922 it did not pay anything. France and Belgium went into the Ruhr and took what they were owed. The German workers went on strike but this meant that Germany was not earning any money. Instead, the government printed money leading to hyperinflation. Money became worthless and prices went up. People’s savings were wiped out and many people were destitute.
The political consequences were very bad. Many people in Germany blamed the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar Republic and the government. Many ex-soldiers joined the Freikorps led by Kapp. In 1920, they tried to bring down the government through a coup in Berlin. The army refused to defend the government. It looked as if the Weimar Republic would fail, but the coup was defeated by a general strike by German workers. However, threats to the Weimar Republic from extreme right-wing groups remained.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid points; addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
There was unemployment, poverty and homelessness.
Germany lost important industrial areas like the Saar.
Germany had to pay huge reparations.
Germany did not pay the reparations.
France and Belgium sent troops into the Ruhr.
Printing of money led to hyperinflation.
Right-wing groups hated the Weimar Republic.
The Kapp Putsch.
Political assassinations were frequent.
The German army refused to support the government.
The Munich Putsch.
Germans blamed the government for the Treaty of Versailles.
In November 1923, Stresemann introduced the Rentenmark.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
People in Germany had a terrible time after the Treaty of Versailles. Its terms were harsh and made life very difficult. There were both economic and political problems for the Germans to solve.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 6 (a): What was the Saar plebiscite of 1935?
One mark for each relevant point.
It was a vote.
It was written into the Treaty of Versailles.
After 15 years a plebiscite should be held.
It was to decide who should control the region.
The choice was France, Germany or stay separate.
It was being administered by the League of Nations.
Both France and Germany wanted the Saar because of the rich coalfields.
The people voted to rejoin Germany.
There was intimidation by the Gestapo during the plebiscite.
It was important because it was a victory for Hitler justifying his idea of uniting all German speakers.
Question 6 (b): Why did Britain go to war over the German invasion of Poland?
Level 4: Explains two reasons. 6 marks
Level 3: Explains one reason. 4–5 marks
Four marks for one explanation, five marks for explanation supported by specific contextual knowledge.
Britain went to war over Poland because it had decided that Hitler could not be trusted and that what he really wanted was to dominate the whole of Europe. Hitler had so far demilitarised the Rhineland, achieved Anschluss, taken the Sudetenland and then invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Hitler had broken his promises at each stage and Britain could not continue to let Hitler take one country after another.
Level 2: Identifies or describes valid reason(s); addresses the question but does not explain. 2–3 marks
One Level 2 mark for each identification/description.
The policy of appeasement was not working.
Hitler broke the promises he made at Munich.
The policy of appeasement ended after the German takeover of Czechoslovakia.
It looked as if Hitler was out to dominate the whole of Europe.
Britain had been rearming.
In March 1939, Britain gave a guarantee to Poland.
Level 1: Writes about the topic but does not address the question. 1 mark
Britain went to war in 1939 because of what Hitler was doing. Britain decided that action had to be taken.
Accept all valid responses.
Level 0: No creditable response.
Question 6 (c): How surprising was the 1939 Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union?
Level 5: Explains both sides and supports a valid judgement on ‘how far’. 10 marks
One explanation or more on each side.
Although it may seem surprising because Hitler hated communism, the pact made absolute sense at the time. Hitler knew he might have to fight Britain and France, so he did not want to fight Russia at the same time. The pact saved him from this and helped him move towards Lebensraum. It was also convenient for Stalin to strengthen his army. It was not at all surprising.
Level 4: Explains both sides. 7–9 marks
For candidates to be awarded this level they must have one explanation on each side.
Seven marks for one explanation on each side; one additional mark for each additional explanation on either side.
Level 3: Explains one side. 4–6 marks
One Level 3 mark for each explanation.
It was not at all surprising. From Germany’s point of view, it made a lot of sense. Hitler was worried about fighting a war on two fronts. The Nazi- Soviet Pact prevented this. He and Stalin agreed to divide Poland up between them and not to attack each other. This meant Hitler could invade Poland without worrying that Russia would attack Germany.
It was very surprising. Up until this point Hitler had regarded the Soviet Union and communism as his greatest enemies. Fascism and communism were complete opposites and in Mein Kampf he wrote about destroying the Soviet Union. Also, the Russians were Slavs and Hitler regarded Slavs as subhuman. All this makes the pact very surprising.