Edexcel IGCSE History: Depth Studies — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Depth Studies revision notes

Every Depth Study question on Paper 1 follows the same three-part structure: a 6-mark part (a) that asks what impression an extract gives, using an attributed historian’s interpretation rather than a primary source; an 8-mark part (b) that asks you to explain two effects of something; and a 16-mark part (c) essay that asks how far you agree with a stated view, with bulleted prompts to help shape your answer and a requirement to bring in information of your own. The questions below practise all three parts across several topics.

---

Question 1 — the Weimar Republic’s early problems, 1919–23

Extract 1: From a history of interwar Germany, published in 1998.

“The new republic was condemned before it had a chance to prove itself: forced to accept a peace it had not made, propped up by a constitution that invited instability, and battered within its first years by risings from left and right alike.”

1(a) What impression does the author give about the Weimar Republic’s early problems? You must use Extract 1 to explain your answer. [6]

1(b) Explain two effects of the hyperinflation of 1923 on Germany. [8]

1(c) “The Weimar Republic was doomed from the moment it was created in 1919.” How far do you agree with this statement? [16]

You may use the following in your answer:

• the Treaty of Versailles and the “stab in the back” myth
• the Weimar constitution

and any other information of your own.

Question 2 — the growth of Nazi support, 1929–33

Extract 2: From a history of the Weimar Republic’s collapse, published in 2004.

“It was not that the Nazis suddenly became more persuasive after 1929; it was that mass unemployment made millions of Germans willing, for the first time, to listen to what they were saying.”

2(a) What impression does the author give about why Nazi support grew after 1929? You must use Extract 2 to explain your answer. [6]

2(b) Explain two effects of the Depression on the Nazi Party’s electoral support between 1929 and 1932. [8]

2(c) “The Depression alone explains the growth of Nazi support between 1929 and 1933.” How far do you agree with this statement? [16]

You may use the following in your answer:

• Nazi propaganda and the role of the SA
• fear of communism among businessmen and the middle class

and any other information of your own.

Question 3 — Hitler’s consolidation of power, 1933–34

Extract 3: From a biography of Hitler, published in 1991.

“Within eighteen months of taking office, Hitler had turned a chancellorship hedged about with constitutional limits into a personal dictatorship that answered to no one.”

3(a) What impression does the author give about how completely Hitler’s power changed between 1933 and 1934? You must use Extract 3 to explain your answer. [6]

3(b) Explain two effects of the Enabling Act of March 1933 on Germany. [8]

3(c) “The Night of the Long Knives was the most important step in Hitler’s consolidation of power.” How far do you agree with this statement? [16]

You may use the following in your answer:

• the Reichstag Fire and the Decree for the Protection of People and State
• the death of Hindenburg and the army’s oath of loyalty

and any other information of your own.

Question 4 — the USA in the 1920s

Extract 4: From a history of the United States between the wars, published in 2010.

“For the first time, ordinary American families could own the products of mass production on credit, and for much of the decade it seemed the prosperity would never end.”

4(a) What impression does the author give about prosperity in the USA in the 1920s? You must use Extract 4 to explain your answer. [6]

4(b) Explain two effects of mass production and hire purchase on the American economy in the 1920s. [8]

4(c) “Most Americans shared in the prosperity of the 1920s.” How far do you agree with this statement? [16]

You may use the following in your answer:

• farmers and workers in declining industries such as coal and textiles
• discrimination faced by black Americans and recent immigrants

and any other information of your own.

---

Answers

1(a) The author gives the impression that the Republic’s problems were inherited rather than self-inflicted: it did not choose the peace treaty it had to accept, and its founding constitution already carried a weakness (“invited instability”) before any government had even acted [3]. The phrase “battered… from left and right alike” also gives the impression that the threat was not from one direction but came at the Republic from opposing extremes simultaneously [3].

1(b) Hyperinflation destroyed savings: by late 1923 money saved by the middle class was worthless, wiping out a lifetime of thrift for many families [4]. It also discredited the Republic itself, since the currency collapsed on its watch and many blamed the government’s decision to print money to fund passive resistance in the Ruhr, permanently alienating a middle class that might otherwise have supported democracy [4].

1(c) There is a strong case the Republic was fatally weakened from the start: it was blamed for the Treaty of Versailles and the “stab in the back” myth denied it legitimacy before it had governed at all, while proportional representation produced unstable coalitions and Article 48 allowed rule by decree, both built into the constitution itself [6]. Against this, the Republic did survive the Spartacist rising, the Kapp Putsch and hyperinflation, and enjoyed genuine stability and growth between 1924 and 1929 under Stresemann, suggesting its problems were serious but not inevitably fatal [6]. A strong answer weighs the inherited weaknesses against this recovery before reaching a supported judgement, rather than treating 1919’s problems as proof of an inevitable collapse fourteen years later [4].

2(a) The author gives the impression that Nazi support grew not because the Nazis’ message changed but because circumstances made people more receptive to a message that already existed — unemployment made people “willing… to listen” rather than making the Nazis newly persuasive [3]. This places the explanation for Nazi growth on economic conditions rather than on any change in Nazi tactics or ideology [3].

2(b) The Depression swelled the pool of angry, desperate voters the Nazis could appeal to: unemployment rose above six million, and Chancellor Brüning’s deflationary policies made conditions worse while discrediting democratic government itself [4]. It also pushed fearful businessmen and the middle class towards the Nazis, since they were seen as the strongest available force against communism, bringing the party crucial funding [4].

2(c) The Depression was clearly central: without mass unemployment, the Nazis had won only 2.6% of the vote in 1928, and their support only became a mass movement once economic collapse gave their message an audience [6]. However, the Depression alone cannot fully explain the scale of Nazi success — their modern propaganda machine under Goebbels, Hitler’s personal campaigning, and the SA’s visible organisation on the streets all converted economic anger into votes more effectively than any rival party managed [6]. A strong answer concludes that the Depression created the opportunity, but Nazi organisation and tactics were what let them exploit it more successfully than other parties facing the same crisis [4].

3(a) The author gives the impression that the change was both rapid and total: “within eighteen months” stresses the speed, while “answered to no one” stresses that no constitutional limit survived the process at all [3]. This gives the impression of a complete transformation rather than a gradual or partial shift in how Germany was governed [3].

3(b) The Enabling Act removed the Reichstag as a check on Hitler, giving him the power to make laws without its approval for four years, which was the legal basis for everything that followed [4]. It also led directly to the destruction of other parties and organisations: trade unions were banned and rival parties dissolved within months, since nothing in the Reichstag could now stop this happening [4].

3(c) There is a strong case for the Night of the Long Knives: murdering Röhm and the SA leadership removed the one internal threat still capable of challenging Hitler, and secured the loyalty of the army, which had feared SA ambitions and whose support Hitler needed above all [6]. However, the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act arguably mattered more, since they supplied the legal machinery — suspending civil liberties and enabling rule without the Reichstag — without which Hitler could not have acted against the SA, or anyone else, without resistance in the first place [6]. A strong answer judges which step removed the last effective check on Hitler’s power, rather than simply ranking the events by how dramatic they were [4].

4(a) The author gives the impression that 1920s prosperity was both widely shared (“ordinary American families”) and, for most of the decade, expected to continue indefinitely (“seemed… would never end”) [3]. This gives an impression of broad-based confidence rather than prosperity confined to a small wealthy minority [3].

4(b) Mass production cut the cost of consumer goods dramatically, above all through Ford’s assembly line, bringing cars and appliances within reach of ordinary families for the first time [4]. Hire purchase let demand run ahead of income, since consumers could buy goods on credit before they could actually afford them, fuelling a boom that depended on continued borrowing [4].

4(c) Prosperity was real for many: rising factory wages, new consumer goods, and the sense of a modern, confident economy touched a broad swathe of urban and suburban America [6]. However, it was far from universal: farmers suffered from overproduction and collapsing prices throughout the decade, older industries such as coal and textiles declined, and black Americans and recent immigrants faced discrimination, low wages and were first to lose work when conditions tightened [6]. A strong answer concludes that prosperity was genuine but unevenly spread, rather than either accepting or dismissing the statement wholesale [4].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Answering the (a) part as if it asks what the extract’s author is right or wrong about, rather than what impression the extract’s own words give.
• Giving only one effect in the (b) part, or naming an effect without explaining how it followed from the cause named in the question.
• Treating the Depression, or any single factor, as the only cause of Nazi growth, rather than weighing it against organisation and propaganda.
• Writing the (c) essay as a one-sided argument rather than reaching a balanced, supported judgement that uses the bulleted prompts and brings in further information of your own.
• Describing events in the (c) essay without linking them back to the statement being judged.