MARK SCHEME PAPER 1 QE MSPSBS 2012
Q1. ‘No country engaged in a war of aggression.’ Use sources A-E to show how far the evidence confirms this statement about the outbreak of World War I.
Examiner Report
This was a SBQ on the general topic of The Origins of World War I, 1870-1914. The topic was the outbreak of World War I. Candidates were asked to use five sources to assess the claim that ‘No country engaged in a war of aggression.’ The most successful answers avoided a sequential approach to the discussion of the sources. Some grouped the extracts, considering those that agreed with the hypothesis and those that contradicted it. For example, Source E summarized the situation by claiming that every country except Britain fought to defend itself and that Britain went to war to defend Belgium. On the other hand, Source D blamed Russian aggression as shown by its mobilization. Others looked at individual countries. For example, they interpreted Source A as a criticism of France whilst Source C attributed blame to an aggressive Serbia. A common feature of these highly creditable answers was that they evaluated the material instead of taking it at face value. Sources B, C and E were seen to be defensive of their respective governments. Credit was given when candidates noted that Source A included perhaps unexpected criticism of France by the Belgian Ambassador. Usually France would be seen as defending Belgium’s interests and neutrality against Germany before World War I. These high quality answers also cross-referenced the sources. In particular the view of a modern historian in Source E was tested against the other extracts and against candidates’ own knowledge. Moderate and weak answers often devoted too much time to summarizing content and gave too little attention to interpretation. The overall quality of the answers was satisfactory and examiners read a good proportion of very successful responses.
Q2. ‘The economic difficulties of France in 1789 were most serious than the political problems.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? OCT/NOV 2009
The key issues are the problems of France in 1789. Candidates must end in 1789, either with the opening of the Estates-General or the end of the year. Candidates can spend more time on what are perceived as the more serious problems but one might normally expect about a 60:40 balance for answers in the two highest bands. Band 5 will require a basic knowledge and understanding of one category of problems. Royal finances were weak. The costs of war were high. The most important nobles and the Church paid little or no tax. Some lesser nobles, who had offices, paid a small ‘tax’ as the price of holding them. Some bourgeois were able to evade many financial impositions. The peasantry bore a heavy burden. Tax collection through tax farmers was inefficient. Attempts at reform by controllers-general were foiled by nobles and the Church who influenced Louis XVI. The late 1780s saw poor harvests with particularly devastating effects on the peasantry.
Most of the demands of the cahiers from the Third Estate were economic, whereas the First and Second Estates looked for political solutions. Louis XVI’s absolutism was accepted almost universally but was not unlimited. Candidates might discuss the personal weakness of the King. Royal intendants were often thwarted by powerful nobles. The parlements proved troublesome. The Assembly of Notables was potentially useful but it was not a solution. The Estates-General seemed to be the best hope of a representative body. If candidates continue beyond the decision to call the Estates-General, they might deal with the unrest in Paris and then in the provinces (Grande Peur). They might examine the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The assumption by the Third Estate of the title ‘National Assembly’ and the nobles’ surrender of some of their privileges can be regarded mostly as political moves. The removal of Louis XVI from Versailles to Paris might also be seen as an important step.
Comments in the Examiner Report
The key issue was the nature of the difficulties in France in 1789. Were the economic problems more serious than the political? High marks did not necessarily require an even balance in the discussion of the two elements. It was valid to spend more time on the problems that were judged to be more serious. However, examiners were looking for a reasonable balance so that an overall judgement could be justified. Therefore, answers that only examined that only either political or economic issues lacked the comparative approach that was central to the question. Examiners were pleased to read some well-argued and well-informed essays. Candidates were given credit when they linked the two elements. More moderate answers were often less successful in examining the political problems of the ancient regime in 1789, apart from noting the incompetence of Louis XVI and the influence of Marie Antoinette. Better answers considered the lack of effective political institutions. Some very successful essays noted that the King’s control over many of the provinces was weak. Nobles were often more influential that the intendants and the other royal officials. The meeting of the Assembly of Notables failed and only revealed the self-interest of the Second Estate. The parlements proved troublesome and were more concerned about their rights than about reform. Credit was given when candidates explained the reasons for and extent of economic problems. These included an inefficient fiscal system and debts incurred by wars. Higher marks were awarded when the answers indicated clearly which were the more serious problems and explained why this was the case. More limited responses often described the problems but did not included a discussion of which was most serious. Examiners were pleased that almost all candidates noted that the end date was 1789 and did not include irrelevant material. The overall standard of the answers was satisfactory.
Q5. ‘Governments were involved in imperialism more for defensive than aggressive reasons.’ How far do you agree with this claim about the period from c. 1870 to 1900? [Oct/Nov 2010]
The key issue is the motives for involvement in New Imperialism at the end of the nineteenth century. Candidates are asked to use at least 3 countries, including Britain, as examples but there is no requirement to give equal attention to each of the selected countries. Credit will be given for the use of overseas examples and such examples will be necessary to reach Band 2 (18-20) or Band (21-25). Answers in Band 1 and most of those in Band 2, will consider alternatives because imperialism was not completely defensive or aggressive. Candidates might discuss economic motives, including the search for inexpensive raw materials, markets and opportunities for investment. These might be seen as either defensive or aggressive. On the one hand, countries tried to protect themselves from more competition during a period of domestic depression. On the other hand, these motives led countries to try to exclude rivals but the economic gains seemed limited. Imperialism was seen as a means to gain international power and reputation. For example, France sought to reassert itself after the 1870-71 defeat by Prussia. The new Italy had the dream of imperial expansion to reflect its view of itself as a major power. Britain gave priority to its growing empire rather than the continent as the symbol of its greatness. This motive could also be defensive. Egypt and East Africa were important to British interests in India. As one country moved into parts of Africa, others felt bound to establish their own regions of influence. Britain and Germany or Britain and France, or Germany against Britain and France might be seen as examples of this. The same was true of China and other regions in the Far East. Social Darwinism might be seen today as evidence of European aggression but at the time it seemed neither aggressive nor defensive but altruistic. Individuals such as Rhodes and Carl Peters will probably be seen as aggressive. They often led where governments were forced to follow. Bismarck, Disraeli and Gladstone might be cited as examples. Governments tried to defuse possible tensions for example at the Conference / Treaty of Berlin (1884-85) where spheres of influence were agreed but with limited success.
Comments in the Examiner report
The key issue about governments’ involvement in imperialism in the later nineteenth century. Were the reasons more defensive than aggressive? The characteristics of the better answers were that they linked imperial enterprises to motives, assessing whether they were more aggressive or defensive and that points were grouped together. This was more a more effective approach than presenting a list, for example, ‘A was an aggressive reason, B was defensive, C was aggressive, D was a defensive reason.’ Credit was also given to examples from European governments and from overseas expansion. For example, candidates were given credit when they explained the French interest in northern Africa that led to the Fashoda crisis and provided reasons for rivalry with Britain in Egypt and other areas. Some referred convincingly to imperial expansion by Germany and Italy. A small number of candidates drew relevant examples from Asia. Some candidates listed reasons for imperialism and could have improved their marks of they had been more careful to explain how far they could be seen as aggressive or defensive.
Q6. Examine the view that the opposition to Nicholas II in Russia had achieved little by 1914. M/J 2011
The key issue is the effectiveness of opposition to Nicholas II by 1914. The end point is clear and discussions of the effects of war after 1914 and the 1917 Revolution will not be relevant unless referred to briefly in a conclusion. Nicholas II became Tsar in 1899 but the 1905 Revolution can serve as an appropriate starting point for answers. This revolution was arguably the most significant rising before 1917. Strikes broke out in many parts of Russia. There was discontent among the peasantry and urban classes. The middle classes were discontented. The Potemkin incident showed that the navy was disaffected. Bloody Sunday in St Petersburg was a major event. However, the opposition to Nicholas II’s regime was weakened by its divisions. Nationalists, liberals and socialists had different programmes. In the end, a combination of force and the promise of political concessions defeated the opposition. The period to 1914 showed the limited success of the Duma and political reformers. Stolypin’s reforms, which included the encouragement of the Kulak class, brought some stability to the economy. Foreign loans bolstered the economy. The minister also aimed to increase religious toleration, extend education and reform local administration to allow some decentralization. Although it can be argued that his success was limited, the greatest opposition to his policies came from within the regime not from outside. Revolutionaries, including Lenin’s Bolsheviks had little success. They were curbed by a police system with many of the leaders in internal or external exile. There were still signs of unrest including strikes that were put down forcefully (for example the Lena Gold Fields Massacre, 1912) but they did little to shake the government. By 1914 Nicholas II’s autocracy was still intact and there were few signs of imminent change, even less a revolution that would bring down the monarchy.
Comments in examiner report
The key issue was the achievements of the opposition to Nicholas II by 1914. It was important that the candidates noted that that 1914 was the end date in this question. It was valid to make a brief reference to the period 1914 to 1917 in a conclusion but these later years were not relevant in the main substance to the answer. Most candidates were able to refer satisfactorily to the 1905 Revolution and its immediate aftermath but some would have deserved higher credit if they had explained the reasons for and extent of the opposition in 1905. The most frequent discriminating factor between modest and good answers was their success in dealing with the years from 1906 to 1914. Opposition continued and some referred to strikes as evidence of this. A number of candidates balanced their responses by considering the reforms of Stolypin which won some support although he did not secure the cooperation of Nicholas II. The economy was improving by 1914 but started from a low base. The army continued to support the Tsar and Russia was becoming militarily stronger. Meanwhile the police system continued to be largely effective against radicals such as the Bolsheviks. Lenin and others did not believe that a revolution was imminent in 1914 and the best candidates showed awareness of this in reaching an overall judgement to the question.
Q7. Why was Stalin able to establish his dictatorship in Russia? M/J 2011
The key issue is Stalin’s establishment of his dictatorship. Stalin used his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party to control appointments even during Lenin’s last years when the latter became less active. As General Secretary, Stalin managed the complete structure of the administration and therefore government from the lowest to the highest posts. It is possible that Lenin and Trotsky planned to remove Stalin but Lenin’s death gave Stalin his opportunity. He outwitted Trotsky and represented himself as Lenin’s heir. Stalin would use allies to gain power for example Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. Trotsky was hounded out and critics or those who were accused of opposing Stalin, were persecuted as Trotskyites. He was then ruthless in destroying those who had helped him to achieve his autocratic position. A succession of purges culminated in the show trials of 1936-38. The purges involved not only political figures but people from many fields, including the military. The Communist Party was decimated and the officer class in the army, navy and air force suffered similarly. The effect of this was to increase Stalin’s dictatorship beyond all previously known bounds in Russia. The NKVD was given targets that were out of proportion with any real opposition. At the same time, propaganda conveyed the image of a genial and successful leader who was responsible for all of the USSR’s (often exaggerated) achievements. Russian history was studied through books which books which were attributed to Stalin (for example, the ‘Short Course in the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’). Radio and newspapers underlined Stalin’s reputation. Candidates can deal with a variety of social and economic policies but these need to be linked to dictatorship. For example, the Five-Year Plans were drawn up to meet Stalin’s demands but they should be linked to the way in which they underpinned his dictatorship. Collectivisation and the destruction of the Kulaks had some ideological basis but more importantly they represented Stalin’s insistence on control.