Yr 11 GCSE History Guide to Paper 1

Transcription

1 Yr 11 GCSE History Guide to Paper 1 This booklet contains: 1) Past examination questions from Paper 1 for you to complete at home 2) Sources from past exam papers and tips on how to analyse and use them in the exams 3) Markschemes and example answers to help you understand how to structure and write answers to different types of question.

2 The Paper 1 Exam. This exam is 2 hours long and is divided into 2 sections. You must answer 4 questions in total 2 questions are compulsory. You will choose the other 2 questions from a selection. This exam is worth a total of 75 marks Part 1 of the Paper 1 Exam Part 1 of the Paper 1 exam will test your knowledge of: 1) The Paris Peace Conference and the Peace Treaties after World War one 2) The League of Nations (its organisation, its involvement in the Manchurian Crisis and the Abyssinian Crisis and the reasons for its failure) 3) The Causes of World War Two *Question 1 is compulsory. You will then choose to answer either question 2 or question 3.* Question 1 (a) The first part of Question 1 will ask you to study a political cartoon and explain its message. This will be worth 7 marks. A political cartoon is a satirical take on an event. It reflects the opinions of the artist and has been deliberately drawn to put across a message or a point of view about that event. How do you successfully analyse a political cartoon? How do you successfully analyse a political cartoon? Follow these 6 easy steps 1) Read the caption and the date of the cartoon this will help you to work out what the cartoon is about and which event it is referring to. Make sure you understand the caption it may be ironic or humorous. 2) Identify the figures in the cartoon what are they? Who do they represent? * A figure can be a real person eg) a politician of the leader of a country. * A figure can be a symbol or a character that represents a country or a particular group of people. 3) Look at the objects in the cartoon why have they been drawn? What do they represent? 4) Work out what the figures in the cartoon are doing - What do their actions mean? Try to figure out why they have been drawn doing this? 5) Try to understand the attitude of the artist look at the way things or people have been drawn? This will help you work out if the artist is biased against someone or something or in support of someone or something. 6) Look for any other clues in the cartoon is there anything written on or in the objects drawn? What is in the background? Your answer to this type of question would be marked according to the markscheme below: Level 1 Describes surface features of the cartoon only (1 mark) Level 2 Provides a simple interpretation of what the cartoon means (2 marks) Level 3 Explains a sub-message (not the main message) of the cartoon supported by some knowledge and understanding of the period. (3-4 marks) Level 4 Explains the message of the cartoon supported by details in the cartoon and sound knowledge and understanding of the period. (5-6 marks) Level 5 Explains the message of the cartoon and the opinion of the cartoonist supported by both details of the cartoon AND sound knowledge and understanding of the period. (7 marks) Tips for writing an answer to this type of question: *Do not to waste time describing the cartoon in detail the focus of your answer should be explaining the message of the cartoon. *Start your answer with. The message of this cartoon is... and say what the main message is *Use details from the cartoon AND your own knowledge to explain the message. *Include the view of the cartoonist in your answer The cartoonist believes..

3 Examples of question 1(a) from past exam papers: A) A British cartoon about the reoccupation of the Rhineland published in Pax Germanica means Peace German Style. What is the cartoonist s message? Use details of the cartoon and your knowledge to explain your answer. [7 marks] B) Their Turn Next A cartoon published in a British newspaper May It is commenting on the Paris Peace Conference. Gas was a common anaesthetic used by dentists at the time. What is the cartoonist s message? Use details of the cartoon and your knowledge to explain your answer. [7 marks]

4 C) A cartoon from a British newspaper, 6 September 1939, three days after Britain and France declared war on Germany. It shows Hitler speaking to Mars, the great god of war. What is the message of this cartoon? Use details of the cartoon and your knowledge to explain your answer. [7 marks] Question 1 (b) The second part of Question 1 will ask you a question which requires you to show your own knowledge. This will be worth 8 marks. You must explain more than one cause/reason in your answer Examples of question 1(b) from past exam papers: a) Explain why Clemenceau and Lloyd-George disagreed over how to treat Germany. (8 marks) b) Explain why the League of Nations was unsuccessful in dealing with the Manchurian Crisis. (8 marks) c) Explain why the Nazi-Soviet Pact made war more likely. (8 marks) Questions 2 and 3 You must choose to answer either question 2 or question 3. There will be no sources to study. The question will be divided in to 3 parts. All parts of the question require you to use your own knowledge. The first 2 parts will be worth 4 and 6 marks. The final part of the question will be worth 10 marks and an additional 6 marks are available for SPAG. Examples of 4 and 6 mark questions: a) What did Lloyd George want to achieve at the Paris Peace Conference? (4 marks) b) Describe how Austria was punished in the Treaty of St Germain. (4 marks) c) What were Germany s main territorial losses under the Treaty of Versailles? (4 marks) d) Explain what Wilson hoped to achieve at the Paris Peace Conference (6 marks) e) Explain why Britain followed a policy of appeasement in the 1930s (6 marks) f) What were the main aims of the League of Nations? (4 marks) g) Why did the League of Nations achieve some successes in the 1920s? Explain your answer (6 marks) h) Explain why Hitler took action against the treaty of Versailles between 1933 and 1938 (6 marks)

5 Examples of 10 mark questions: a) How far can the failure of the League in the 1930s be blamed on the Great Depression? Explain your answer. (10 marks) b) Who was more satisfied with the Treaty of Versailles: (i) Clemenceau of (ii) Lloyd George? Explain your answer. (10 marks) c) The territorial losses in the Treaty of Versailles upset the Germans more than reparations. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks) d) In the 1930s the League of Nations failed in Manchuria for the same reasons it failed in Abyssinia. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks) e) Which was more important in bringing about the Second World War, the failure of Britain and France to act over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland or the Munich Agreement? Explain your answer. (10 marks) What would an effective answer to a 10 mark question look like? The question - Which was more important in bringing about the Second World War, the failure of Britain and France to act over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland or the Munich Agreement? Explain your answer. (10 marks) If there are two different events, causes or factors mentioned in the question you must write about both. Try to make links between the events / causes / factors mentioned in the question. Your answer must have a conclusion which clearly gives your own opinion about which was most important. Make a clear judgement and always give reasons to support your opinion. Below is an example answer to this question. This answer would be worth 8 marks (A grade) The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was very important in causing World War Two. It had been made a demilitarised zone by the Treaty of Versailles. This was to give the French security from a German attack. However, for Hitler it was a reminder of the way Germany had been humiliated at Versailles. Hitler's aim was to destroy all the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. He sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936 but Britain and France did nothing to stop him. If they had acted, the German army would not have stood a chance as it was quite small and undeveloped in Many people in Britain thought it was reasonable for the Germans to have troops in the Rhineland to defend themselves. The League of Nations did nothing because they were busy with the Abyssinian crisis. After 1936 Hitler believed that the western powers would not stand up to him and that he could get away with more if he adopted an aggressive foreign policy. However The Munich Agreement was also a cause of World War Two. At Munich Chamberlain agreed that Germany could have the Sudetenland, this was meant to guarantee peace. At the same time Hitler promised that he would not touch the rest of Czechoslovakia. Shortly after this he broke his promise by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Munich agreement was proved to be worthless. After the meeting at Munich Hitler believed that Britain and France were not strong enough to fight him and they did not have the will do so. You can argue that Munich made the fall of the rest of Czechoslovakia inevitable. His invasion of Czechoslovakia showed that he was determined to take more land in Europe. This made war inevitable because Britain and France would have to stand up to this aim eventually. In conclusion I think the failure to act in the Rhineland was more important because this was Hitler s first use of force and the western powers were strong enough to stop him in When they failed to stand up to him he became confident enough to carry out the rest of his foreign policy, including taking over Czechoslovakia and then the invasion of Poland which led to war. What would an effective answer to a 10 mark question look like? The question - At the time, most people thought the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh.' How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. (10 marks) If you are asked how far you agree with a statement you must explain why you agree with the statement on one hand BUT ALSO disagree with the statement on the other hand. Use your knowledge to explain a wide range of different factors for this question you would need to explain the reactions of a range of different people from the time eg) British people, French people, American people and German people Your answer must have a conclusion which clearly explains how much you agree with the statement. Make a clear judgement and always give reasons to support your opinion. Below is an example answer to this question. This answer would be worth 8 marks (A grade) I agree with the statement to some extent because some people thought the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh, for example the German people thought Germany had been unfairly treated. However there were many other people who thought the opposite. In fact some people believed the Treaty of Versailles was not harsh enough.

6 The Germans thought it was too harsh. They were very angry about the war guilt clause and the reparations because they did not think they had caused the war, so why should they be punished for this. They also did not believe they had been defeated. The war had ended in an armistice not a surrender. This made it difficult to accept the fact that they were not involved in the discussions and that the whole peace settlement was a diktat. They had thought that the peace settlement would be based on the Fourteen points but they now found that self-determination was not being followed because many Germans would now be living under foreign rule. They felt it was unfair that the army and navy had been cut, leaving Germany unable to defend herself. In America Wilson was disappointed because he thought it was too harsh. He feared that unfair treatment of Germany would lead to Germany wanting revenge. However, the reaction in other countries was different. Many people in Britain and France did not feel the Treaty was too harsh. In Britain Lloyd George got a very good welcome when he returned. Massive crowds turned out to cheer him. Many people, especially those that had lost loved ones in the war, thought that Germany deserved to be punished harshly. Although the British public wanted punishment for Germany Lloyd George was worried that the peace treaty was too harsh and would cause resentment in the future. He supported the idea of reparations but wanted the amount paid by Germany to be less than France were demanding. Many people in France thought Germany had been dealt with too leniently. Although some people thought the treaty was too harsh overall I disagree with the statement because the majority of people in France and Britain did not think that it was too harsh. Leaders like Lloyd George and Wilson believed that a harsh treaty would lead to problems later so they did not allow Germany to be crippled by the Treaty. The vast majority of the public in France and Britain strongly felt that Germany deserved to be punished harshly as it has caused the war and the devastation in France They did not feel that the treaty was too harsh. Many people actually wanted to see Germany punished even more harshly. Part 2 of the Paper 1 Exam Question 4 Part 2 of the Paper 1 exam will test your knowledge of: 1) The Red Scare in the USA 2) The American Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s 3) Civil rights campaigners in the USA in 1960s and 70s 4) Civil rights for other groups in the USA - Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Women *Question 4 is compulsory. You will then choose to answer either question 5 or question 6.* You will have to study 3 sources and then answer 3 questions about these sources. This question will test your ability to analyse and evaluate sources. You might be asked: Past examples from Question 4: Example 1 To explain the message of a source To explain why a source was produced at a particular time If you are surprised by a source How much you agree with the interpretation of a source Study source B. Are you surprised by this source? Use the source and your knowledge to explain your answer (7 marks)

7 How to answer Are you surprised? questions Below are some tips for answering questions like the one above: *If the content of the source matches your own knowledge and other sources you might not be surprised. *You might be surprised if the source says something that does not match with your knowledge if it does you could quote the source and then explain why it surprises you. *You need to look carefully at who produced the source they might be biased. It might not surprise you that a particular person or group says something even if what they say is not accurate or is exaggerated OR what somebody says might be surprising if you know they had a different opinion or viewpoint on that issue. *Think about the context within which the source was produced what was happening at that time? The source may/may not be surprising given your knowledge of what was going on at that time. Example 2 An American cartoon from the early 1950s What is the message of this cartoon? Use details of the source and your knowledge to explain your answer. (6 marks) Below is an example of an A grade answer worth 6 marks: The cartoonist is obviously a supporter of McCarthy. The cartoon was published in the early 1950 s which is when McCarthy produced his list of 205 state department officials who he claimed were communists. The Republicans backed him up as a way of attacking the Democrats and the frenzy started. The cartoonist is suggesting that communists are swearing loyalty to America when really they do not mean it. The man is drawn in a threatening way. He is barely human - just like communists. He is clearly not taking the oath seriously, He is mocking it. On his back is the symbol of the USSR and this shows his true loyalty. So the message is that there are communists in America who are taking the oath when they really are loyal to the USSR. The cartoonist thinks they need hunting down. For 6 marks you must include the cartoonist s view: They are supporting McCarthy s anti-communist witch-hunt. For 5 or 6 marks you must explain the main message: Communists are infiltrating America. A 3 or 4 mark answer will only identify a sub-message: Don t trust Communists, Communists are inhuman, Communists are a threat to America

8 Example 3 Why was this cartoon published in 1947? Use the cartoon and your knowledge to explain your answer. (6 marks) Example 4 Why was this poster displayed in 1965? Use the source and your knowledge to explain your answer. (6 marks) Your answer to these questions would be marked according to the markscheme below: Level 1 Candidates describe the source (1 mark) Level 2 Candidates demonstrate basic knowledge and understanding events at the time the source was produced, but they do not relate this to the message or purpose of the cartoon OR they explain the message or purpose of the cartoon without putting it into context. (2-3 marks) Level 3 Candidates demonstrate some understanding of the source and some knowledge and understanding of the context in which it was produced. They interpret the message of the cartoon and explain why this message was published at that time. (4-5 marks) Level 4 Candidates demonstrate sound understanding of the source and sound knowledge and understanding of the context in which it was produced. They explain the purpose of the source and explain its intended impact in that context. (6-7 marks)

9 Questions 5 and 6 You must choose to answer either question 5 or question 6. There will be no sources to study. The question will be divided in to 3 parts. All parts of the question require you to use your own knowledge. The first 2 parts will be worth 4 and 6 marks. The final part of the question will be worth 10 marks. Example 1 (a) What were the effects of the Immigration Act of 1965? [4 marks] (b) Explain the reasons why Native Americans complained about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. [6 marks] (c) How successful were the Hispanic Americans in their struggle for better rights and conditions? Explain your answer. [10 marks] Example 2 Example 3 What would an effective answer to a 10 mark question look like? The question By 1975, African Americans had made much progress in fighting inequality. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer (10 marks) If you are asked how far you agree with a statement you must explain why you agree with the statement on one hand BUT ALSO disagree with the statement on the other hand. Use your knowledge to explain a wide range of different factors for this question you would need to explain the different ways in which progress had been made and the different reasons why progress was limited. Your answer must have a conclusion which clearly explains how much you agree with the statement. Make a clear judgement and always give reasons to support your opinion. Below is an example answer to this question. This answer would be worth 10 marks (A* grade) By 1975 it is argued that African Americans had made lots of progress. Firstly, the Brown V Board of Education case in 1954, which resulted in children being segregated in school being declared as unconstitutional, was a major step. It was the first time since the Plessy V Ferguson case in the 1890s that black and white children were taught in the same school, so black children could receive as good education as white children equality. Under Nixon s committee, by 1975 only 8% of black children in the south went to all black schools; this was a major step forward. Additionally, the Voting Rights act in 1965 was a major achievement, as it outlawed the literacy test needed to vote. This means the 3 million (out of 5 million) black people who were previously unable to vote in the south would now have the opportunity to do so. Consequently, black people would be able to vote for politicians that wanted to help black people. This meant that 120 cities had black mayors by 1970, which was a step towards equality. However, many African Americans felt progress had not been made. The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed racial discrimination in schools and jobs, as well as abolishing the segregation system. Although, it was often not enforced in southern areas, such as Birmingham and Montgomery, meaning black people still faced inequality in public areas and jobs. Furthermore, the Montgomery Bus Boycott from 5 December 1955 to 13 November 1956, when bus segregation was declared unconstitutional by the supreme Court exhibited some change, However, during the summer of 1961 when the Freedom Riders attempted to ride the buses in southern states such as Alabama, many faced beatings and arrests. It demonstrated that the law could not gain African Americans inequality, and that the white people still were racist. In conclusion, African Americans had achieved equality by 1975 to a partial extent. They had had the support of the government (e.g. October 1962 when Kennedy sent in troops to help James Meredith get into university) with many law changes and acts passed (e.g. Voting Rights 1965) but the racist feel of white Americans failed to grant them equality by 1975.