IGCSE MAY 2003 PAPER 2
Markscheme, examiners' report and teacher's advice combined
General comments
A
large majority of candidates coped comfortably with the demands of Paper 2
and there were many solid performances worth at least a Grade C. These
candidates have been well prepared for the demands of this Paper and
although many were unable to sustain a top level performance through all
the questions, they did, nevertheless, demonstrate an impressive range of
source skills and most were able to reach the top level for some of the
questions. There was also a small minority of candidates who appeared to
be unfamiliar with the demands of the Paper. They often ignored the
sources and when sources were used it was often in an uncritical fashion
and at surface level only. Some of the main weaknesses are commented on
below. The emphasis in this introduction on these weaknesses should not
detract from the fact that many candidates demonstrated the abilities to
use their contextual knowledge to interpret and evaluate a wide range of
different types of historical sources most effectively. Some candidates
struggled with the idea of sources having a message. When asked to comment
on ‘message’ they simply described the source or repeated its content.
Use of contextual knowledge is the key here. If candidates can use their
knowledge of the context and of the author of the source, they will be
more successful in understanding the message. Many candidates wasted time
by starting each answer by writing for a page or more about what the
source under question says. This is not necessary and was rarely
rewardable. The Examiner knows what the source says and is much more
interested in the candidate answering the question set. Many of these
candidates eventually lose sight of the question and never get round to
answering it. Some candidates still struggle with questions asking them to
compare sources for agreements and disagreements. These questions need to
be answered through a point by point comparison of the sources, not by
summarising one source, then summarising the other, and ending with vague
assertions about the sources agreeing or disagreeing. When questions ask
candidates to use one source to check another, they must check the
reliability of a specific claim made in the first source. Some candidates
make vague assertions without ever considering specific points in the
sources. The key to doing well in this Paper is how candidates use their
contextual knowledge. Candidates who use no contextual knowledge do not do
well. Neither do candidates who try and ignore the sources and answer only
from contextual knowledge. This Paper is designed to test candidates’
abilities to use historical sources but these sources come from, and are
about, particular historical contexts. The best answers will always be
those where candidates use the sources and their knowledge of the
historical context together. A source is most effectively interpreted when
contextual knowledge is used to inform the interpretation. A source is
most effectively evaluated when its claims and its purpose are considered
in their historical context.
Paper
2 is designed to make candidates think. It sets them puzzles to solve. It
is heartening to see so many candidates rising to these challenges with
enthusiasm, knowledge, skills, understanding and originality.
Markscheme
1
Study Sources A and B. How far do these two sources differ? Explain your
answer.
L1
REPEATS WHAT THE SOURCES SAY - NO EXPLICIT COMPARISON [1] OR COMPARES
SOURCE TYPE [1] ORCLAIMS THEY ARE BOTH ABOUT THE ANSCHLUSS [1]
L2
ONE SOURCE SAYS SOMETHING THE OTHER SOURCES DOES NOT [2]
L3
VALID AGREEMENT(S) OR DISAGREEMENT(S) [3-4] many of these will be
based on inferences, e.g. opportunism in B.3 marks for one, 4 marks
for two or for explanations of agreements or disagreements.
L4
VALID AGREEMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS [5]
Candidates
should be well aware by now that when comparison questions such as this
one begin with ‘How far’, there will be both agreements and
disagreements to find. They should also be aware of the fact that one will
probably be harder to find than the other. Most candidates were able to
explain ways in which the sources disagree but far fewer looked for the
agreements which were harder to find. To score well in this type of
question it is important to compare the sources point by point and not to
summarise the sources and then offer vague phrases such as ‘on the other
hand’ or assertions such as ‘this source says the same’. Examples of
agreement and disagreement must be explained.
Teacher's
Advice
SIMILAR
DIFFERENT
Sources A and B
differ, but not to any great extent.
For instance, A
is a summary of the Anschluss, whereas B describes the events in detail.
Similarly, A mainly includes opinions, but B mostly contains facts.
On the other
hand, both A and B are critical of Hitler, saying that he was confused and
hesitant. In addition, both the sources suggest that the invasion was not
planned until the very last moment, and that Hitler took advantage of the
chaos in Austria to complete the Anschluss.
So the sources
do not differ very much, which is not surprising because they are both
history books published at around the same time.
2
Study Source C. Are you surprised by Schuschnigg's account? Explain your
answer.
L1
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS [1]
L2
QUESTIONS WHETHER SCHUSCHNIGG CAN BE TRUSTED –BUT DOES NOT EXPLAIN
HIS PURPOSE [2-3] e.g. would not have remembered it in this detail,
exaggerates to make Hitler look bad
L3
VALID ANSWERS WITH GENERALISED SUPPORT [3]
L4
CROSS REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE OR TO OTHER SOURCES
[4-5]
L5
EXPLAINS PURPOSE OF SCHUSCHNIGG [6]
Source
C posed several challenges to candidates. Firstly, it is a report by
Schuschnigg of what Hitler is meant to have said to him. Secondly, the
question asked about Schuschnigg’s account, not about what Hitler said.
Thirdly, all kinds of claims are made by Hitler which need to be checked.
Finally, Schuschnigg’s account comes from his memoirs not published
until 1947. Many candidates used their contextual knowledge to check the
claims made by Hitler. This was done well with relevant and detailed
knowledge being demonstrated. Up to 5 marks could be earned by this
approach. Better candidates realised, however, that they should be
concentrating on Schuschnigg rather than on Hitler. They had some
interesting points to make about his possible purpose, although not all
realised the importance of the date and tried to argue that he was trying
to gain sympathy and support from other countries against the threat posed
by Hitler.
Teacher's
Advice
SURPRISED
NOT
SURPRISED
On the one
hand, I’m not surprised by Schuschnigg’s account because I know that
Hitler was a bully and a liar. For instance, he constantly made threats
and accusations to hide his true intentions, notably over rearmament and
the Rhineland, and he later lied to Chamberlain over the Munich Agreement.
In addition, I know that Italy was an ally of Germany, and that Britain
had no intention of standing up to Hitler over Austria.
On the other
hand, I am surprised by Schuschnigg’s account, because it wasn’t
published until 1947, and this seems a long time after the actual date of
the Anschluss. Schuschnigg was obviously trying to show that he couldn’t
be blamed for it, although his delay suggests he had something to hide.
In conclusion,
I’m not surprised by Schuschnigg’s account of his meeting with Hitler,
but the source is not entirely trustworthy.
3
Study source D. Do you think Hitler was lying in this source? Explain your
answer.
L1
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS [1]
L2
UNDEVELOPED USE OF PROVENANCE [2]
L3
ANSWERS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT HITLER WAS JUSTIFYING THE INVASION [4]
L4
CROSS REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE OR TO OTHER SOURCES
TO SAY HE WAS LYING OR WAS NOT LYING [4-6]
L5
BOTH LEVELS 3 AND 4 [7] OR CROSS REFERENCE TO SHOW HE WAS LYING ABOUT
SOME THINGS AND WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT OTHER THINGS [7]
L6
ANSWERS EXPLAINING THE IMPACT HITLER WANTED TO MAKE ON HIS AUDIENCE
[8]
This
question produced a full range of responses with many good answers. Again,
contextual knowledge was used effectively to check the claims being made
by Hitler. Better candidates considered his purpose in saying this to a
British journalist, and therefore a British audience, in March of 1938.
Teacher's
Advice
WAS
LYING
WASN’T
LYING
I think there
is evidence to suggest that Hitler was lying in this source, because
Sources A and B suggest that the incorporation of Austria into the German
Reich was a long term aim of Hitler’s. Similarly, Source C shows that
Schuschnigg didn’t deceive Hitler – it was the other way round! –
and that Hitler was determined to take over Austria.
However, I
think there is also evidence to suggest that Hitler wasn’t lying. For
example, I know that the Anschluss was popular with most (but not all)
Austrians, and both Sources A and B suggest that it was a hasty manoeuvre
that was planned at the very last moment.
Nevertheless, I
know that Hitler could never be trusted, and his purpose in Source D is to
deceive the British journalist, so that Britain is not alarmed by the
Anschluss, even though it was forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles and
threatened the very existence of Czechoslovakia.
Consequently,
Hitler was mainly lying in Source D, although he also included some
embarrassing truths in it!
4 Study Sources E and
F. How similar are the messages of these two cartoons? Explain your
answer.
L1
DESCRIBE CARTOONS - NO INTERPRETATION OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CARTOONS
[1]
L2
VALID IN INTERPRETATION OF CARTOON(S) - BUT NO COMPARISON OF MESSAGE
[2-3]
L3
VALID COMPARISONS OF SUB-MESSAGES OF THE CARTOONS [4]
L4
EXPLAINS SIMILARITY OR DIFFERENCE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITALY
AND GERMANY [5-6] For Source F only allow answers along the line of
'Mussolini was being duped'. Do not allow 'Mussolini was being tricked
by Hitler' for Source E.
L5
EXPLAINS SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
GERMANY AND ITALY [7]
Some
candidates struggled with the idea of ‘a message’ and tended to
describe the cartoons, but there were also many different interpretations
of the two cartoons. The most successful answers occurred where candidates
used their contextual knowledge to help them interpret the cartoons. Both
cartoons have something to say about the relationship between Hitler and
Mussolini and candidates needed to focus on this to reach the top two
levels in the mark scheme. However, the cartoons also contain many
sub-messages and candidates who concentrated on these were placed in a
lower level where as many as 5 marks out of 7 could still be scored.
Source E was generally interpreted well with many candidates realising
that Mussolini is shown in a dominant position. Source F shows the
relationship has completely changed with Hitler able to discard Mussolini
if necessary. Some candidates had more problems with Source F and some
thought that they were shown as equal partners. They obviously failed to
spot Hitler’s boot in the back of Mussolini!
Teacher's
Advice
SIMILAR
DIFFERENT
The messages of
the cartoons have a lot in common. For instance, both suggest that the
Anschluss is wrong, and both suggest that Mussolini helped Hitler to
annexe Austria.
However, the
messages also differ in a number of important ways.
For example, E
blames Mussolini for letting Hitler get away with the Anschluss. I know
this because in the cartoon it shows Mussolini ignoring the Anschluss,
even though he knows it to be illegal, and is in a position to stop it.
Turning to
Source F, this cartoon suggests that Hitler used Mussolini to annexe
Austria. Having first got Italy on his side, he simply took advantage of
his friendship with Mussolini to capture Austria, and there was nothing
that Mussolini could do about it.
So the messages
of these cartoons are not very similar, because E suggests that Italy and
Germany are more or less equals, but F suggests that Italy is dominated by
Germany.
5 Study Sources G and
H. ‘These two sources prove that it was wrong for Britain and France to
object to Anschluss.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer.
L1
ANSWERS BASED ON SOURCE TYPE - UNDEVELOPED [1]
L2
USES SOURCES AT FACE VALUE [2-3] e.g. Source G says they should not
object because it's a long way away; Source H says they should not
object because H shows the Austrian people supported Anschluss.
L3
EXPLAINS SOURCES ARE PROPAGANDA BUT DO NOT GET TO PURPOSE [3-4] e.g. G
is British propaganda against Nazis, H is German propaganda.OR
CONSIDERS TYPICALITY OF H [3]
L4
INTERPRETS G CORRECTLY AND USES THIS AS PROOF THAT THEY SHOULD OBJECT
[5]
L5
CROSS REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE OR TO OTHER SOURCES
[5-6] Answers on G must be based on correct interpretation. 5 marks
for H, 6 marks for G.
L6
EXPLAINS SOURCES CANNOT PROVE IT BECAUSE OF THEIR PURPOSE – EXPLAINS
IMPACT OF SOURCES [6-7]
This
question produced a wide range of responses. A small minority of
candidates ignored the sources and wrote essays on whether they thought
that Britain and France should have objected to the Anschluss. There were
some excellent interpretations of Source G with candidates explaining
Low’s point very effectively. There were other candidates who completely
missed the point. They argued that as he was showing Britain and France so
far away from the action he was approving of their appeasing of Hitler.
Many candidates used their contextual knowledge to test Source H. They
either used their knowledge to question or support the claims made in the
drawing, or explored the purpose behind the production and publication of
the drawing.
Teacher's
Advice
WRONG
RIGHT
Neither of
these sources prove that it was wrong for Britain and France to object to
Anschluss.
Firstly, Source
G suggests that the German takeover of Austria would inevitably have
serious long term consequences for Britain and its Empire, and for France,
too. This is made quite clear by the way that Britain and France are being
pushed over by the other countries. Thus, Source G suggests that Britain
and France should object to Anschluss, but it doesn’t prove it, because
the cartoon is merely expressing an opinion, as opposed to stating a
matter of fact.
Secondly,
Source H suggests that the Anschluss was popular and that most Austrians
wanted it. This is shown by the comments made by the Austrian in the
drawing, and by the Nazi flags that are being waved in it. As a result,
Source H suggests that Britain and France were wrong to object to
Anschluss. However, the drawing was produced in Nazi Germany, where only
pro-Nazi messages were allowed to be published, so it cannot be trusted
because it is an example of Nazi propaganda.
Moreover, both
Sources B and C suggest that there were some – perhaps many –
Austrians who objected to Anschluss, which further discredits Source H.
Therefore,
neither Source G nor Source H prove very much about the Anschluss, except
that different people had different ideas and opinions about it.
6
Study Sources I and J. Do these two sources show that Chamberlain changed
his mind about Hitler? Explain your answer.
L1
THINKS THAT I AND J ARE SAYING THE SAME THING BASED ON A MISREADING OF
ONE OR BOTH OF THE SOURCES [1] OR LOOKS FOR A CHANGE OF MIND WITHIN A
SOURCE [1]
L2
EXPLAINS THAT J IS STRONGER THAN I [2-3] Candidates must argue he had
changed his mind.
L3
AS FOR LEVEL 2 BUT IN ADDITION NOTES THAT ONE IS PRIVATE THE OTHER IS
PUBLIC [4]
L4
EXPLAINS THAT THE TWO SOURCES ARE NOT INCONSISTENT [5] Allow both:
Chamberlain really knows Germany is a threat in both sources, and
Chamberlain has no intention of standing up to Hitler in both sources.
L5
USES SPECIFIC CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE TO ARGUE HE HAD NOT CHANGED HIS
MIND [5-6] Candidates will use contextual knowledge to question the
fact that the sources appear to suggest he did change his mind.
L6
CONSIDERS THE PRIVATE/PUBLIC NATURE OF THE SOURCES TO ARGUE HE HAD NOT
CHANGED HIS MIND [7]
Some
candidates misunderstood the question and tried to compare both sources
with pre-1938 attitudes. However, most did compare the attitudes in
Sources I and J. The weaker candidates tended to argue that Chamberlain
did change his mind because Source J appears to be stronger, more
outspoken than Source I. Better candidates realised that the two sources
are not inconsistent - neither is Chamberlain actually threatening to do
anything. Some of these candidates develop their answers through the use
of their contextual knowledge and demonstrated that Chamberlain indeed had
not changed his mind. The top level in the mark scheme was reserved for
those candidates who focused on the fact the Source I was private, whereas
Source J was for public consumption. They used this distinction to argue
that Chamberlain had not changed his mind.
Teacher's
Advice
DID
DIDN’T
At first
glance, Sources I and J do appear to show that Chamberlain changed his
mind, because in Source I he doesn’t support Schuschnigg and in Source J
he criticises Germany.
However, a
closer inspection of the sources shows that Source I was a private
response by the British government to Schuschnigg, informing him that
Britain was powerless to intervene. In contrast, Source J was a public
statement, designed to express British dissatisfaction with the Anschluss.
Consequently,
the sources do not show that Chamberlain changed his mind about Hitler.
Politicians often say one thing in private and another thing in public,
but in this case they mean the same thing: Britain was unwilling to get
involved in the Anschluss.
7 Study all the
sources. How far do these sources show that Britain and France were to
blame for the Anschluss? Explain your answer.
L1
NO VALID SOURCE USE [1-2]
L2
USES SOURCES TO SUPPORT OR REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS [3-5]
L3
USES SOURCES TO SUPPORT AND REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS [6-8] Up to 2 bonus
marks for any evaluation of sources (no more than one per source).
Source use in L2 and L3 must be reference to a source by letter,
provenance or quote. There must be an explanation of how the source
content supports/rejects the hypothesis. Use Y in margin for each
source support of the hypothesis, an N for each source rejection of
it.
A
surprising number of candidates made no use of the sources and simply
wrote essays about who was to blame for the Anschluss. It is worrying that
the number of candidates answering this final question in this way has
increased. Candidates should be aware of the fact that they will not score
more than 2 marks out of 10 by using this approach. The question asks
candidates how far the sources support the statement and answers should
therefore focus on the sources. Candidates need to explain how some
sources support the statement and how other sources do not. It is not
enough for candidates to assert this - it must be explained using the
content of the sources. Very few candidates attempted to evaluate the
sources. Extra marks are awarded to candidates who attempt this.
Teacher's
Advice
It’s
difficult to tell from the sources if Britain and France were to blame for
the Anschluss because there’s evidence to support both points of view.
Source G, for
example, blames Britain and France for ignoring the Anschluss, because of
its long term consequences for the peace and security of Europe as a
whole.
Alternatively,
some sources, such as I and J do not blame Britain and France, because
they show that Britain and France were in no position to do anything about
the Anschluss.
Meanwhile,
other sources blame Hitler for the Anschluss. Sources A and B, for
instance, blame him because it appears in ‘Mein Kampf’ and was
essential for eastwards expansion. Similarly, Source C shows that Hitler
was determined to get his way, while Source F shows that he deceived
Mussolini to achieve it.
Similarly,
Source E blames Mussolini, because it suggests he could have stopped the
Anschluss from taking place.
Finally, some
of the sources cannot be trusted to show who was to blame for the
Anschluss. Firstly, because Hitler is lying in Source D. And secondly,
because Source H is an example of Nazi propaganda.
Therefore, the
sources do not blame Britain and France for the Anschluss. Nor do they
entirely blame Hitler, even though it was as a result of his actions that
the Anschluss took place.
