Question 1 – you must answer all parts of this question. Study Source A. (a)What can you learn from Source A about Germany in the years immediately after the First World War? (4m) Source A: From a history of the modern world, published in Some Germans claimed that the German army had never been defeated but had been let down by Jews and Communists at home. This ‘stab in the back’ theory was untrue because it was the German commander Ludendorff who had said the army could not carry on. Others blamed the Treaty of Versailles for most of Germany’s post-war troubles, saying it was an unfair, dictated peace. (Total for Question 1 = 6 marks) Useful phrases: From the source we can learn / infer ……………… This is because it says “……………………………” Or This is because it shows ………………………………… We can also learn …………………………………………… This is because it says “……………………………” Or This is because it shows ………………………………… Q1a is an inference question. You need to use supported inferences (with a quote) Level Mark Descriptor 0 No rewardable material L1 1m Students do no more than copy/paraphrase the source. L2 2-3m Makes unsupported inference(s). An inference is a judgement that can be made from studying the source, but is not directly stated by it. 2 marks for one unsupported inference. 3 marks for two unsupported inferences. L3 4m Makes supported inference(s). A supported inference is one which uses detail from the source to prove the inference.

(b) Describe the key features of Stresemann’s successes abroad in the years 1924–28. (6m) (Total for Question 1 = 6 marks) Useful phrases: One key feature of ………………. was …………. Another feature was …………… An affect of this was that ………. This led to ………… This caused ………. This was important because …………. The most important feature / effect / cause was ……… Q1b is a ‘ DESCRIBE ’ question. You need to make 2-3 developed statements (simple statements = L1 max 3m) LevelMarkDescriptor 0No rewardable material 11-3Simple statements 1 mark for one simple statement 2 marks for two simple statements 3 marks for three simple statements 24-6Developed statements A developed statement is a simple statement supported by factual detail 4-5 mark for one developed statement 5-6 marks for two developed statements 6 marks for three developed statements (or 2 strong ones)

1 (c) Explain the effects of the Wall St Crash on Germany. (8m) Useful phrases: One effect of …………. was ……………… This is because ………………………… This led to ………….. This also caused ………………….. This was important because ……………… Another effect was ……………….. A final effect was ……. In conclusion …….. The most important …… Target: Consequence/recall of knowledge (A01/AO2) 0 No rewardable material. L1 1-2 Simple or generalised statements of effect(s). The student makes statements which lack any supporting contextual knowledge or makes unsupported generalisations. 2 marks for two or more simple statements. L2 3-5 Developed statements of effect(s). The student supports the statement with relevant contextual knowledge, but does not explain effects. 3-4 marks for one developed statement. 4-5 marks for two or more developed statements. L3 6-8 Developed explanation of effect(s). The candidate explains one or more effect supported by selected knowledge. 6-7 marks for one or more explained statement. 8 marks for answers which show links between effects. Q1c is an ‘ EXPLAIN ’ question- it can be a ‘causes’, ‘effects’ or ‘changes’. For this one you need to make 2-3 developed explanations of effect and then finish with a conclusion (pick the MOST important EFFECT ).

1(d) Explain the causes of hyperinflation. (8m) Useful phrases: One cause of …………. was ……………… This is because ………………………… This led to ………….. This was a result of ……………… This also caused ………………….. This was important because ……………… Another cause was ……………….. A final cause was ……. In conclusion …….. The most important …… Target: Consequence/recall of knowledge (A01/AO2) 0 No rewardable material. L1 1-2 Simple or generalised statements of cause(s). The student makes statements which lack any supporting contextual knowledge or makes unsupported generalisations. 2 marks for two or more simple statements. L2 3-5 Developed statements of cause(s). The student supports the statement with relevant contextual knowledge, 3-4 marks for one developed statement. 4-5 marks for two or more developed statements. L3 6-8 Developed explanation of cause(s). The candidate explains one or more causes supported by selected knowledge. 6-7 marks for one or more explained statement. 8 marks for answers which show links between effects. Q1d is an ‘ EXPLAIN ’ question- it can be a ‘causes’, ‘effects’ or ‘changes’. For this one you need to make 2-3 developed explanations of cause and then finish with a conclusion (pick the MOST important cause ).

Answer EITHER Question 2(a) OR 2(b). Spelling, punctuation and grammar will be assessed in this question. EITHER 2 (a) Explain how the treatment of the Jews changed in Nazi Germany (8m) OR 2 (b) Explain how the lives of young people changed in Germany in the years 1933–39 (8m) Indicate which question you are answering by marking a cross in the box. If you change your mind, put a line through the box and then indicate your new question with a cross. Chosen Question Number: Question 2(a) Question 2(b) Q2 is an ‘ EXPLAIN ’ question- it can be of ‘causes’, ‘effects’ or ‘changes’. You have a choice of 2. For both of these one you need to make 2-3 developed explanations of change and then finish with a conclusion (pick the MOST important CHANGE ). Target: Consequence/recall of knowledge (A01/AO2) 0 No rewardable material. L1 1-2 Simple or generalised statements of change(s). The student makes statements which lack any supporting contextual knowledge or makes unsupported generalisations. 2 marks for two or more simple statements. L2 3-5 Developed statements of change. The student supports the statement with relevant contextual knowledge 3-4 marks for one developed statement. 4-5 marks for two or more developed statements. L3 6-8 Developed explanation of change(s). The candidate explains one or more change(s) supported by selected knowledge. 6-7 marks for one or more explained statement. 8 marks for answers which show links between effects.

The Treaty of Versailles was the main reason for the problems facing Weimar Germany in the years Do you agree? (16m) SP&G (3m) You may use the following in your answer and any other information of your own: The Weimar Constitution used a system of proportional representation The Kapp Putsch Question+1 6 marks / Spelling, punctuation and grammar = 3 marks Total = 19m Question 5 is an ‘AGREE WITH A STATEMENT’ question. You need to analyse to at least three points (at least one which is not provided in the Q). You need to link each paragraph back to the Q and finish with a CONCLUSION which shows no one event alone could explain the outcome. Useful phrases: …………… was an important reason for the ………………… because …………… This led to …………… As a direct result ……………………. This caused ………… ………… was another important reason for ……………… because …………… ………… was a final important reason for ……………… because ………………… …………… was the most important because it led to/had the greatest effects. On the other hand, …………………………. had important results but these were not as significant/wide-ranging because …….. Overall, …………….. was the most important because ………………… However ………… on its own ……….. could not result in ……………….. because ……. L1-4 Simple or generalised statements of consequence. L2 5-8 Developed statements of consequence. Developed statements which agree and/or disagree using the stimulus and/or additional material. Mostly relevant and accurate with an implicit focus on the question. L Developed explanation of consequence. Developed explanation of more than one consequence agreeing and/or disagreeing from stimulus and/or additional material. The answer mainly focuses on the question. L A sustained argument. This considers the inter-relationship between a range of consequences from the stimulus and/or additional material. Low level 4 (13-14) Makes judgement on relative importance of more than two consequences. High level 4 (15-16) Illustrates that one most important consequence on its own could not provide a satisfactory explanation.