Download June 2007 Mark Scheme The Causes and Impact of the First World

June 2007 Mark Scheme
The Causes and Impact of the First World War c. 1890 - 1920
14(a) To what extent was the stalemate on the Western front during the First
World War a result of military strategies pursued by both sides? [45]
Focus: Assessment of reasons for stalemate on Western Front
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Key points: Candidates should discuss the role of military strategies even if they wish
to argue others factors were significant. In relation to military strategies candidates
may refer on the German side to the decision to dig in on the Western Front after the
failure of the Schlieffen Plan, the battle of the Marne and the ‘race to the sea’, and
the creation of a strong defensive line (such as the Hindenburg line). There may also
be reference to the attempt to “bleed France white” at Verdun. On the entente side
there may be reference to the attempts to break the German defences by mass
attacks over no man’s land which played into the hands of the German machine guns
and artillery and may also refer to Haig’s strategy of wearing the enemy down by
constant attacks, however costly (such as the Somme and Passchendale). On the
other hand, candidates may refer to the constraints placed on strategy by technology
and mass armies (machine guns, artillery, barbed wire, trench warfare, gas, railways,
mass armies and so on). Candidates may also suggest that only when technology
and strategy developed was the stalemate broken (tanks, air power, calibration of
artillery, storm troopers etc).
Answers in Band I and II will clearly evaluate a range of factors, offering a more or
less balanced discussion of the core issue raised by the question. Answers in Bands
III and below will be less focused, less evaluative, narrower in scope, more
descriptive.
14(b) Assess the reasons why the Britain, France and the USA differed in their
attitudes towards peace with Germany at the end of the war. [45]
Focus: Assessment of attitudes towards peace
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with all three to score highly. Whilst the different attitudes may
well be described, the focus is on the reasons for these different attitudes – expect
treatment of the relative length of time involved in the war, where the war was fought,
casualties, economic and social strain, longer term factors related to history (French
fears of German attack, British economic concerns, American isolationism), public
opinion, strategic position, personalities of the Big Three.
Answers in Band I and II will clearly evaluate a range of factors, offering a more or
less balanced discussion of the core issue raised by the question. Answers in Bands
III and below will be less focused, less evaluative, narrower in scope, more
descriptive
International relations 1919-1941
17(a) Assess the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany to 1923. [45]
Focus: Impact of the Treaty of Versailles
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Answers will need to demonstrate a clear understanding of how the Treaty impacted
on Germany up to 1923. Main issues that may be considered include: territorial
disputes and the non-application of self determination (East and West boundaries
and German speaking minorities that were outside the new borders, this may include
West Prussia/Polish Corridor and the Sudetenland, prevention of Anschluss).
Reparations could consider how far Germany could afford to pay and its impact on
inflation, perhaps linking it to their failure to pay reparations by the end of 1922, wider
economic issues such as the loss of industrial areas such as Alsace Lorraine or
areas of Silesia could be considered as their loss made it harder for Germany to pay,
the loss of the Saar coal could also be considered. War guilt could be discussed and
how far this would be a useful weapon for right-wing groups within Germany,
attempts to disarm Germany unilaterally, the exploitation of these issues by the
nationalist right. Some candidates may link this to the difficulties created for the new
government and the idea of a Diktat, weakening the position of the Republic.
Answers in Band I and II will clearly evaluate a range of factors, offering a more or
less balanced discussion of the core issue raised by the question. Answers in Bands
III and below will be less focused, less evaluative, narrower in scope, more
descriptive.
17(b) How successful was the League of Nations? Explain your answer with
reference to the 1920s and the 1930s. [45]
Focus: Evaluation of the League of Nations
The question may be agreed with or rejected – no set answer is looked for but
candidates will need to address the question.
Consideration of the League’s relative successes during the 1920s with some
examples can be made. Candidates may refer to events such as the Aaland Islands,
Greece/Bulgaria and Yugoslavia/Albania to illustrate the successes, although better
answers will suggest that these involved only small nations. Candidates may refer to
events such as Vilna, Corfu and the Ruhr to illustrate failure and suggest that this
happened when they were dealing with larger nations.
Answers will attempt to consider the evidence of the League’s increasing inability to
deal with the deteriorating international situation of the 1930s. A main focus might
well be on the two crises of the 1930s, over Manchuria and Abyssinia, as examples
of the dilemmas faced by the League and how these incidents influenced the growing
challenges provided by Japan, Italy and Germany. In discussing the success of the
League candidates could consider the work of the various agencies, particularly
refugees and mandates, but may consider any of the social achievements on health,
labour and working conditions.
Answers in Band I and II will clearly evaluate a range of factors, offering a more or
less balanced discussion of the core issue raised by the question. Answers in Bands
III and below will be less focused, less evaluative, narrower in scope, more
descriptive.