'Marking Scheme\r'

'www. studyguide. pk UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE world(prenominal) EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Subsidiary aim and GCE Advanced pose MARK SCHEME for the may/June 2008 app bent movement publisher 9697 HISTORY 9697/01 penning 1, maximum raw lollipop 100 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and empennagedidates, to indicate the carryments of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to honour marks. It does non indicate the details of the repugnions that as well ask place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began.All Examiners be instructed that secondary indemnify purposes and unexpected memory accesses in open firedidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly glisten the germane(predicate) existledge and skills demonstrated. grudge schemes must be sympathize in conjunction with the incredulity papers and the enunciate on the examination. • CIE exit non enter into discussions or corresponden ce in connection with these mark schemes. CIE is publish the mark schemes for the whitethorn/June 2008 question papers for around IGCSE, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllab utilizations and close to Ordinary Level syllabuses. www. xtremepapers. realise www. studyguide. pk foliate 2 bulls eye purpose GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 platform 9697 opus 01 GENERIC MARK BANDS FOR set ab come forth QUESTIONS Examiners deliver assess which Level of Response surmount reflects closely of the answer. An answer leave behind non be required to demonstrate on the whole of the descriptions in a particular Level to qualify for a Mark Band. In tidy sums of 3 or 4 marks, examiners pull up s prosecutes unremarkably ap record the middle mark/ wizness of the middle marks, moderating it up or rout according to the particular qualities of the answer. In bands of 2 marks, examiners should a state of ward the cut back mark if an answer just deserves the band an d the soaringer mark if the answer understandably deserves the band.Band 1 Marks 21â€25 Levels of Response The arise give be consistently analytical or explanatory quite a than descriptive or narrative. Essays pull up stakes be to the full pertinent. The job go out be structured coherently and abet by rattling assume actual hearty and ideas. The writing entrust be accurate. At the lower closing of the band, on that point may be some weaker sections much thanover the general property imparting show that the burndidate is in control of the line of reasoning. The best answers must be awarded 25 marks. 2 18â€20 Essays exit be focused clearly on the demands of the question still at that place will be some unevenness.The address will be mostly analytical or explanatory rather than descriptive or narrative. The answer will be mostly relevant. close to of the production line will be structured coherently and support by largely accurate factual material . The postage stamp will be that a trade goodish consentaneous answer has been provided. 3 16â€17 Essays will reflect a clear consciousness of the question and a fair attempt to provide an melodic line and factual knowledge to answer it. The approach will contain analysis or explanation entirely there may be some hard descriptive or narrative passages. The answer will be largely relevant.Essays will achieve a genuine job tinyly may privation rest period and depth in factual knowledge. Most of the answer will be structured satisfactorily b atomic number 18ly some parts may privation full coherence. 4 14â€15 Essays will indicate attempts to argue relevantly although often implicitly. The approach will dep complete more(prenominal) on some heavily descriptive or narrative passages than on analysis or explanation, which may be moderate to introductions and conclusions. Factual material, sometimes real full, will be used to impart information or give away events rather than to address directly the requirements of the question.The structure of the argument could be organised more effectively. 5 11â€13 Essays will offer some appropriate elements entirely there will be microscopical attempt primarily to yoke factual material to the requirements of the question. The approach will lack analysis and the quality of the description or narrative, although sufficiently accurate and relevant to the topic if non the particular question, will non be linked effectively to the argument. The structure will show weaknesses and the treatment of topics within the answer will be wild. 6 8-10 Essays will non be properly focused on the requirements of the question. at that place may be m whatsoever unsupported assertions and commentaries that lack sufficient factual support. The argument may be of particular(a) relevance to the topic and there may be mental confusion about the implications of the question. 7 0-7 Essays will be characterised by sig nificant irrelevance or arguments that do not begin to make significant points. The answers may be largely fragmentary and incoherent. Marks at the quarter of this Band will be given very rarely because even the most wayward and fragmentary answers usu every(prenominal)y make at l easterly a few valid points. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. mesh topology www. studyguide. k paginate 3 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 write up 01 segmentation A: The Origins of macrocosm fight I, 1870â€1914 handing-Based Question: psychoanalysis and Evaluation 1 ‘Serbia was most to beak for the Sarajevo Crisis. ’ commit springs Aâ€E to show how advertisemost the picture bears this statement. CONTENT ANALYSIS [L2â€3] EVALUATION [L4â€5] A absolute antiAustrian, antiFranz Ferdinand statement by a member of a terrorist group. Y-Threats expressed to Austria and the Archduke B Official letter from a German embassador to the Kaiser wi th his handwritten notes. Y-The ambassador urged Austria to take a oderate attitude and avoid an extreme response. N-William II realised that the situation was very serious and fully supported Austria. He did not urge moderation. CROSSREFERENCE TO some early(a) PASSAGES Y- tooth root C agrees Y- solution can be that there was legitimate not however general antias the personal Austrian relish in view of the writer moreover as the conviction of Serbia. N-Contradicted by different(a) members of showtime D and the Black feed. especially bug E, N-Source comes from a member of a the views of official Serbian purview small group. Although particularly which is impetuous to reach a settlement iolent, it was not with Austria. congresswoman of general Serbian opinion. Y-The letter is au pasttic and probably reflects accurately the views of the embassador. Y-The Kaiser’s handwritten notes are authentic and reflect his chemical re satisfy to the blackwash of Archduke Fr anz Ferdinand. Y-Although the writers of B disagree about Austria’s reactions, taken together they represent different German opinions. Y-Agrees with Source A that the Austrians see danger in Serbia. Source C agrees that Serbian public opinion is very widely anti-Austrian. N-Source D gives the cautious and anxious views of the French nd British disposals. in that location is in addition a type to the fears of the Serbian administration. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. authorise former(a) (e. g. Contextual knowledge) Y- Serbia was the prima(p) state in the Balkans that stand for a serious nationalist threat to the divers(a) Austrian Empire. It susceptibility have do more to capture violent groups. N-The Serbian governmental sympathies was not responsible for the character character assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This act was condemned universally but Austria used it as an excuse to take action against Serbia. It did not enter negotiations seriously . Y-By 1914, Austria was eeply suspicious of Serbia as the loss leader of hostile sunrise(prenominal) independent states, threatening the un slight break-up of its Empire. Y-Serbia did not act sufficiently to suppress anti-Austrian terrorist groups. N-The Kaiser’s notes reflect his complete support for Austria, e. g. the Blank Cheque, and his disposal to adopt hasty and immoderate attitudes. N-The conditions that Austria made on Serbia were probably too humiliating to be turn outable. www. studyguide. pk knave 4 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 subject 01 C Letter of an Austrian diplomatist to the Austrian immaterialMinister Y-Anti-Austrian aroma was widespread in Serbia. All social and organizational groups were involved. There was even the (ludicrous) admit that Austria had caused the assassination. Y-The diplomat was in Belgrade when he wrote the letter; he had first-hand knowledge. N-He neglects the reasons for Serbian hostility t o Austria. Y-Agrees with Source A, which is recount of terrorist animosity to Austria. Agrees with the Kaiser in Source B that Austria had a justified grievance against Serbia. N-Disagrees with D, the moderate views of separate major states who do not condemn Serbia. Disagrees ith Source E, which is an offer by the Serbian government to settle differences. Y-Anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia had been make up for a extensive time. An physical exercise was the Balkans fights. Austria snarl itself on the defensive. N-Serbia was a smaller country and did not represent a major threat, even to a declining Austria. D Letter from the French embassador to his unconnected Minister. N-Fears of an extreme Austrian reaction are share by the governments of France, Britain and Serbia. Austria is seen as the major danger to peace. Y-The letter probably represents accurately the discussions in which he Ambassador was involved. N-Source does not appreciate the reasons why Austria was taking a punishing line against Serbia. Y-Source B partly agrees inasmuch as the German Ambassador dissuaded the Austrians from taking extreme measures. Source E agrees as the offer of the Serbian government to resolve differences with Austria. N-Source C strongly disagrees. Source A can overly be seen to disagree because it shows the ceaseless hostility of an antiAustrian terrorist group. Y-France and Britain deprivationed to defuse the Sarajevo crisis. The Serbian government was involuntary to make concessions. N-The British overnment did not make its exact attitude sufficiently clear. E Message from a Serbian Ambassador to his Prime Minister. N-The Serbian government condemns the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and inclinationes to strengthen good relations with Austria. Y-The marrow is reliable because it is very probably authentic. N-The Serbian government had not previously done all animadvertable to suppress violent anti-Austrian groups. Y-Source D agrees directly and indi rectly. Source B partially agrees (the words of the German Ambassador). N-Source A can be taken to disagree as can the Kaiser‘s notes in Source B.Source C strongly disagrees: opinion in Serbia is extremely anti-Austrian. Y-The Serbian government responded positively to Austrian demands aft(prenominal)(prenominal) the Sarajevo assassination. N-The Serbian government had tolerated the presence of some extreme antiAustrian groups. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. send away www. studyguide. pk paginate 5 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 Marking Notes [Note: all papers are to be marked using the generic marking bands for source-based and see questions. ) 1 Source-Based Question L1 WRITES ABOUT THE HYPOTHESIS, NO pulmonary tuberculosis OF SOURCES [1â€5]These answers write about Sarajevo or even generally about 1914 but will ignore the question, i. e. they will not use the sources as information/ show up to test the given hypothesis. Fo r example, they will not discuss ‘Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis’ but will signalize events very generally. Include in this level answers which use information taken from the sources but only in providing a summary of views expressed by the writers, rather than for testing the hypotheses. Alternatively, the sources qualification be ignored in a general essay answer. L2 USES INFORMATION construe FROM THE SOURCES TO gainsay OR SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS 6â€8] These answers use the sources as information rather than as demo, i. e. sources are used at face cheer only with no evaluation/interpretation in context. For example, ‘Austria magnified the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The German Ambassador in Source B does not think that the Austrian government should take precipitate measures against Serbia, p meanring a more imagineed approach. Source D states that the British Foreign Minister divided up this view a nd entrustd that the Austrian government should be valid in its demands on Serbia.Source E gives the view of the Serbian government, in which it promised not to allow extremism against Austria in its territories. Those proved of universe involved in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand would be punished. The Serbian government wished for good relations with Austria. ’ Or alternatively, ‘Austria did not exaggerate the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Source A portrays the extreme opinions of a member of a terrorist group even afterwards the assassination. They represented a potent threat to Austria.In Source B, the Kaiser supported Austria and did not agree that Austria should be talk over to be cautious. In Source C, the Austrian diplomat describes widespread extreme anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia after the assassination. ’ L3 USES INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SOURCES TO contest AND SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS. [9â€13] Thes e answers know that testing the hypothesis involves both attempting to confirm and to disconfirm it. However, sources are used only at face value. For example, ‘There is secernate for and against the claim that Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis.Source A supports the claim because it is evidence of the views of a member of a terrorist group that was completely anti-Austrian and completely critical of the get smoothen to Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was not only expressing his own opinion. This is supported in Source B by the views of Kaiser William II and in Source C, the description of anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia. On the other hand, the claim is contradicted by other Sources. Source C records the fears of a Serbian Ambassador in Britain that Austria would overreact whilst Grey, the British Foreign Minister, had asked the Austrian government to pursue oderate policies. Source E proves that the Serbian government was willing to punish those who were responsible for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and sought good relations with Austria. ’ © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk rapscallion 6 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 L4 BY reading/EVALUATING SOURCES CHALLENGE OR SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS. IN CONTEXT, Syllabus 9697 FINDS Paper 01 EVIDENCE TO [14â€16] These answers are capable of using sources as evidence, i. e. demonstrating their utility in testing the hypothesis, by interlingual rendition them in their historical context, i. . not simply accept them at face value. For example, ‘It is more accurate that Austria exaggerated the crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Source A is violently anti-Austrian and regards the Archduke as a tyrant. It was particularly offensive to give up such a statement soon after the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. However, the Black Hand group was a small smallity and not nec essarily representative of the wider Serbian opinion. The Kaiser’s support of stern Austrian action in Source B is distinctive of his volatile tendencies.It is not reliable as evidence of Austria’s reaction. Source C is a ample account of anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia but is not necessarily reliable although it is written by a diplomat. It is contradicted by the views of the Serbian Ambassador in Source D, who claims that Austria had pursued anti-Serbian policies for a long time, and even more by the Serbian Ambassador in Source E. There mogul have been strong anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia, as Source C reports, but Source E is strong evidence of the wish of the Serbian government not to provoke Austria.Source D includes the views of other governments. Both the French and British governments believe that the Austrian government should remain calm. There was a long history of ill feeling mingled with Austria and the Balkan states, especially in Serbia. The assassi nation of a leading member of the Austrian royal family (the Emperor’s heir) was particularly dramatic but Austria shared the blame for the poor relations among these countries. ’ L5 BY INTERPRETING AND EVALUATING SOURCES IN CONTEXT, FINDS EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE AND SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS. 17â€21] These answers know that testing the hypothesis involves attempting both to confirm and disconfirm the hypothesis, and are capable of using sources as evidence to do this (i. e. both impediment and disconfirmation are done at this level). For example, (L4 plus) ‘… However, the sources can also be interpreted to show that Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis. Source A comes from a member of a terrorist group that had carried out the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and its programme was widely supported in Serbia.There is no sign that the Black Hand would end its activities and, although it had few members, the danger that they represented ha d already been proved by their role in the assassination. Source B includes the provocative views of the Kaiser but the German Ambassador’s letter does not criticise the Austrians for exaggerating the crisis; he only wishes the Austrians to be moderate in their response. Source C is strong evidence of the anti-Austrian sentiments in Serbia. The diplomat was correct in his belief that such feelings were very widespread in Serbia.It is also true that Serbia, like other Balkan states, believed that Austria was a declining business leader. Austria had to take strong action to replication this opinion. Even more insulting was the allegation that Austria had caused the assassination. ’ © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 7 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 L6 AS L5, PLUS EITHER (a) EXPLAIN why EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE/SUPPORT IS BETTER/ PREFERRED, OR (b) RECONCILES/EXPLAINS PROBLEMS IN THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT N EITHER CHALLENGE NOR SUPPORT IS TO BE PREFERRED. [22â€25]For (a), the argument must be that the evidence for challenging or supporting the claim is more justified. This must involve a relative judgement, i. e. not just why some evidence is better, but why some evidence is worse. For example, ‘Although there is evidence in the Sources both to challenge and support the claim that Serbia was most to blame for the Sarajevo Crisis, the more convert case contradicts the claim. The strongest evidence is from the Sources that show how anxious the Serbian government was to defuse the situation. These are Source D and especially Source E.Although Source D is a letter from the Ambassador of a country that was not friendly towards Austria, it is probably an accurate account of the discussions that he was involved in. It can be supported by own knowledge that the Serbian government was frightening of Austria and that the British government, represented by Grey, called for moderation. Source E is very probably an accurate account of a Serbian government’s message to Austria and its wish to avoid extreme action. Source A should not be given much weight as justification for harsh policies by Austria. The members of the Black Hand group were few.They were a danger to Austria but this did not justify action against Serbia as a whole. The handwritten notes of William II in Source B are an exaggerated response in support of Austria. They wrinkle with the more sensible attitude of the German Ambassador in this omit. Whilst Source C is probably a generally accurate account of anti-Austrian feeling in Serbia, it ignores Austria’s responsibleness for bad relations amongst the states. ’ For (b) include all L5 answers which use the evidence to characterize the hypothesis (rather than simply seeking to support/contradict) in order to improve it.For example, ‘An alternative explanation is that, although Austria did not exaggerate the horror of t he assassination in the before long condition, it was not justified in using it as the excuse for a major war against Serbia which was then to involve all of the major countries in europium. The assassination did not only horrify Austria but all major European countries, the members of the trinity Entente as well as those of the Triple Alliance. Austria used the assassination to justify the complete suppression of Serbia, which had been its enemy for a long time. Source C is the only extract that refers to long-term anesthetizes and it is very one-sided.However, the crisis in Sarajevo can only be understood when we consider these long term issues, including the animosity between the Austrian Empire and the more recently independent Balkan states and Austria’s membership of the Triple Alliance, with its rivalry to the major states in the Triple Entente. The Serbian government could have done more to suppress anti-Austrian terrorist groups but it did not have direct respon sibility for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo and tried seriously to defuse the situation. ’ © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 8Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 partition B Essay Questions 2 How farthest did cat sleep Bonaparte ensure liberty and equality in his domestic government of France? The key issue is the temper of forty winks’s government of France. The question clearly refers to domestic issues; discussions of foreign policy or the pretend of Napoleon’s rule on other countries will not be relevant unless they are a brief part of introductions or conclusions. cardinal would expect answers in Bands 1 (21â€25) and 2 (18â€20) to consider arguments for and against Napoleon’s support for liberty and equality.However, examiners should not require an equal balance. The balance will reflect the argument. For example, it world power reject ’lib eral’ measures as of minor wideness. Answers in other Bands baron plump for an argument that accepts or rejects ’liberty and equality;’ without considering the alternative at all. It will be relevant to discuss the principle Napoleon (1804), an attempt to unify the diverse justnesss of France. Its confirmation of equality before the law and the end of privilege, and ghostly toleration would point towards Napoleon’s liberalism. Careers were open to talent.However, associations of workers were banned and women were given fewer rights than men. Napoleon unplowed a tight hold on power through his controlling rule. Officials were nominated and the Empire ensured Napoleon’s personal rule. Opposition was suppressed and reference top executive be made to the work of Fouche as Minister of Police. Equality was limited by the barricade of promotion to Napoleon’s supporters. 3 wherefore did industrialisation have crucial political effectuate on Europe during the nineteenth century? (You should refer to developments in at least two of the quest countries: Britain, France and Germany in your answer. The key issue is the link between industrialisation and political developments. Candidates are asked to refer to at least two countries. This should help to avoid hidden responses. However, examiners will not expect any balance between the two or three countries and the question does not specify how much time should be given to particular examples. It will not be necessary to describe the development of the Industrial renewing per se but to link developments to the key issue. It might be argued that the Industrial Revolution encouraged the harvest-tide of a new middle class.Its scotch riches enabled it to play a more principal(prenominal) political role. Reference might be made to the ameliorate Acts (1832 and 1867) in Britain and to political advances in France from 1848. The position of the urban functional class, a lthough it lacked economic power, was enhanced by its ingress in large towns. Gradually political concessions had to be made to them, partly to avoid unrest. Reference might be made to the Reform Acts (1867 and 1884), with its supplements such as the Secret Ballot Act, in Britain and to political events in France.Political concessions were also made to the working class in Germany by the end of the nineteenth century. It will be relevant to discuss social reform, for example in education and housing, which came about largely because of the political pressures from the working class. High credit should be given when candidates point out the link between industrialisation and new political ideas such as Socialism and Marxism. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 9 4 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01Why was von Bismarck more booming than the revolutionaries of 1848â€49 in unifying Germany? The key issue is the telep hone circuit between Bismarck’s success and the misery of the German revolutionaries in 1848â€49. Examiners should expect a reasonable balance. 60:40 each way can virtuousness any mark but 70:30 would normally lead to the award of one Band lower than would otherwise be given. However, as in all answers, the overall quality of the argument will be the most authorised criterion. An clear discussion of Bismarck in an otherwise imbalanced answer might still be deserving a high mark.Band 5 (11â€13) will require a basic understanding of either Bismarck or the 1848â€49 revolutions. The question asks ‘Why? ’ and the most effective answers will be analytical but answers that contain sequential analyses of Bismarck and 1848â€49 should not be undervalued. Bismarck was helped by Prussia’s strong soldiery power whereas the earlier revolutionaries had been militarily weak. He was supported by William I whereas Frederick William IV pooh-pooh the poss ibility of a German crown. However, Frederick William IV did state a comparatively liberal constitution that became charismatic to other German states.Prussia’s economy was strong; candidates can discuss the importance of the Zollverein. Bismarck was more skilful in handling the other German states. He was more successful in relations with other countries through his diplomacy and use of war. Candidates can illustrate this through the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870). Meanwhile, Austria was a weaker rival by the 1860s and less able to prevent German unification. 5 apologise the problems European countries go about in promoting lofty amplification during the later nineteenth century.The key issue is the problems faced by European countries when they engaged in empurpled enterprises. Examiners will look for some examples, both from Europe and overseas. However, the range of possible overseas examples is wide and examin ers will be realistic in their expectations. For example, some very good arguments might be supported by examples from a limited range of regions. There were problems in communication. Governments were sometimes involved in enterprises because of the actions of local officials, for example Britain and Cecil Rhodes. Sometimes different policies were favoured.For example, Bismarck was less burning than German public opinion. In spite of hopes for profits, imperial expansion could be expensive. Imperialism resulted in tensions between countries and added to military costs because larger and more expensive navies were needed. There was the danger of war and reference can be made to some crises such as Britain and France’s involvement at Fashoda (1898). Some candidates might huckster the question to use ‘problems’ as a spin to explain the causes of imperialism, for example economic advantage or strategic interests.This will be valid as long as the link is made betw een causes and problems. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 10 6 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 Why was the First World War so important in the evenfall of the Romanov regime and the victory of the Bolsheviks? The key issue is the link between the First World War and the events of 1917. Candidates might take either of two approaches. 1914â€17 might be seen as the culmination of a long decline of tsarist government, with less attention being given to the wartime period.Alternatively, answers might begin in 1914. both approach is possible but the temptation in the first will be to spend too long on the pre-war period. In particular, the Bolsheviks were not in a strong position in 1914 and answers in Band 1 (21â€25) and Band 2 (18â€20) will need to show a sound understanding of the Bolshevik victory by the end of 1917. Answers that spot only with the February or the October Revolutions might find it trying to get beyond Band 3 (16â€17). The war push aside Nicholas II’s regime. Russia suffered heavy defeats with broad casualties.The resulting inflation ruined an economy that had been improving by 1914 but was still too weak to reassert the pressures of the conflict. Food became short. The Tsar’s decision to take personal command showed his lack of ability as a military leader but it also discredited him politically. Russia was left to the rule of Tsarina Alexandra and Rasputin. The vector sum was the February Revolution. In spite of their later propaganda, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not important in this rising. Kerensky and the Provisional Government failed to establish a stable government.They tried to deal with grievances about diet and land but ineffectively. The many political groups could not be managed. The war beard unsuccessfully and the resulting grievances increased. Although Lenin and the Bolsheviks were check into in the July Days, Kornilov†™s attempted coup discredited Kerensky. The October Revolution showed the ability of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, although a minority, to take deciding(prenominal) action. Lenin’s promise of major reforms and slogans such as ‘All power to the soviets’ had an enthusiastic response. Lenin soon inclined his offer of a coalition government to chisel in the Bolsheviks firmly in power. ‘The unpopularity of the Versailles settlement was the most important reason why Hitler gained power in 1933. ’ How far do you agree with this judgement? The key issue is the reasons why Hitler came to power in 1933. Candidates might continue the explanation throughout 1933 by explaining the sequence of events from his assigning as Chancellor to the introduction of the Enabling Act. However, answers that end with the Chancellor’s appointment can merit any mark. The question asks candidates to consider particularly the importance of the Versailles settlement.This di smantled the German military. Colonies were surrendered. There were territorial concessions in Europe, especially the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France and the loss of areas in the east to Poland. People who were regarded as German were living in other countries. Reparations had to be paid. Unification with Austria was forbidden. The War criminality clause attributed blame for the First World War to Germany. Hatred of the settlement, the ‘stab in the back’ and the ‘November Criminals’ get together Germans. This can form the basis of a good answer.However, answers in Band 1 (21â€25) and Band 2 (18â€20) can be expected to go further and compare Versailles as a reason with other factors. Weimar Germany did not establish a stable democracy. proportional representation allowed small parties to exert undue political leader influence. Changes of government were frequent. Extreme right and left-wing parties caused tensions. However, high credit should be given to candidates who understand the limited appeal of the Nazis in the 1920s. The Munich Putsch (1923) was put down easily. The army and the Junkers/traditionally strong right-wing social classes continued to exert influence.Nevertheless, Weimar seemed to have been more successful in the 1920s. It alleviated the worst economic effectuate of the war, came to agreements about the repayment of reparations and was accepted as a leading member of the League of Nations. The death of Stresemann was a blow and it can be argued that the Wall lane Crash (1929) that drove the Weimar Republic off-course. Hitler himself was an effective leader. He built up the Nazis through organisation and propaganda to twist the second largest party in the 1930 election and the largest in 1932 †but they actually lost support in a later election that year.He kept his governing body when others, such as von Papen, thought that they could control him, refusing to accept any office except Chancellor. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net www. studyguide. pk Page 11 8 Mark Scheme GCE A/AS LEVEL †May/June 2008 Syllabus 9697 Paper 01 How different were Stalin’s policies in governing Russia to 1939 from those of Nicholas II? The key issue is the contrast between Stalin and Nicholas II. Examiners can look for a balanced approach. 60:40 either way can merit any mark but 70:30 would normally lead to the award of one Band lower than would otherwise be given.However, as in all answers, the overall quality of the argument will be the most important criterion. An excellent discussion of either Stalin or Nicholas II in an otherwise unbalanced answer might still be worth a high mark. Candidates are free to argue that the similarities were more important than the differences: they were both autocrats; they suppressed political opposition; their secret police operated outside the law; they represented a personal cult of government. However, it might be claimed that Stalin’ s rule was more brutal. The millions of casualties went far beyond the numbers who were prosecuted/persecuted by Nicholas II.Their ideologies were different. Stalin claimed, justifiably or not, that his regime was based on Marxism. Nicholas II control by divine right. A few candidates might mention their different attitudes to religion and the Church but this is not necessary for any mark. Their economic policies were different. Stalin regarded economic change as a high priority. He pushed through radical reforms in agriculture and fabrication that had wholesale social implications. Nicholas II allowed some economic reforms †for example the policies of Witte and Stolypin †but they were not particularly important to his conservative mind.Nicholas II was averse to change, unlike Stalin who introduced everlasting political social and economic change. Although he enjoyed an autocratic position, Nicholas II was personally weak, open to advice especially from the Tsarina. He allowed some courtiers and Rasputin to have too much influence. Stalin shared power with nobody. He destroyed those who helped him to power, including Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. The purges destroyed heap who were not a real threat to his regime. © UCLES 2008 www. xtremepapers. net\r\n'