OxfordAQA IGCSE World History: International Relations Depth Studies (9245)

This guide covers Paper 1 International Relations Depth Studies, one of two papers in OxfordAQA International GCSE History (9245), a new qualification for teaching from September 2026, first examined May/June 2028.

Where this fits in 9245

Paper 1 focuses on international relations through depth studies, examining key periods and events in detail. It pairs with Paper 2 Studies in Change, which instead traces change over a longer historical period. Specific named depth-study options within Paper 1 are set by OxfordAQA and are confirmed closer to first teaching.

Syllabus coverage

OXFORDAQA INTERNATIONAL GCSE HISTORY (9245) — PAPER 1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEPTH STUDIES

Paper 1 assesses one or more depth studies in international relations, requiring detailed knowledge of a specific historical period or set of events involving relations between nations, along with the causes, course and consequences of the events studied.

How to approach it

Because depth studies reward detailed, specific knowledge rather than broad overview, build a solid factual base for your chosen depth study – key dates, individuals, events and their consequences – rather than relying on general historical background. International relations topics typically ask candidates to weigh multiple causes or consequences against each other, so practising structured, evaluative answers (rather than narrative retelling) is valuable preparation. As this is a new qualification for first teaching September 2026, check with your centre or OxfordAQA directly for the confirmed depth study options and any updated guidance as materials are published ahead of first teaching.

Official syllabus

OxfordAQA International GCSE History (9245) specification PDF — oxfordaqa.com.

What a depth study requires

Depth studies test explanation and judgement, not recall of a narrative. The recurring question types are: explain why something happened, assess how far one factor was responsible, and evaluate the usefulness or reliability of a source. Chronology matters only insofar as it supports causation.

Two habits raise marks reliably: always support a claim with specific detail — a date, a name, a figure, a treaty clause — and always weigh factors against one another rather than listing them.

Peacemaking and the League of Nations

The Treaty of Versailles (1919) imposed on Germany the war guilt clause (Article 231), reparations later fixed at £6.6 billion, an army capped at 100,000 with no air force, submarines or tanks, demilitarisation of the Rhineland, and territorial losses including Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish Corridor and all colonies.

The Big Three wanted different things — Clemenceau security and revenge, Lloyd George a balance preserving trade, Wilson his Fourteen Points and self-determination — and the treaty satisfied none of them fully, which is itself a standard exam judgement.

The League of Nations succeeded in the 1920s in smaller disputes (Aaland Islands, Upper Silesia) and in humanitarian work, but failed over Manchuria (1931) and Abyssinia (1935). Its structural weaknesses were the absence of the USA, the requirement for unanimity, the lack of an army, and the slowness of its procedures.

The road to war, 1933-39

Hitler’s foreign policy aims — overturning Versailles, Lebensraum, and union with Austria — met a policy of appeasement.

1933  Germany leaves the League and the Disarmament Conference
1935  Conscription reintroduced; Anglo-German Naval Agreement
1936  Rhineland remilitarised -- no Allied response
1938  Anschluss with Austria
1938  Munich Agreement: Sudetenland ceded
1939  Rest of Czechoslovakia occupied -- appeasement abandoned
1939  Nazi-Soviet Pact; invasion of Poland; war

Appeasement is defensible on the arguments that Britain was militarily unready, that public opinion feared another war, that Versailles was widely thought unjust, and that the USSR seemed a greater threat. Against it: each concession strengthened Hitler and convinced him the democracies would not fight.

The Cold War

Origins lie in ideological opposition, wartime conferences (Yalta and Potsdam), and mutual mistrust deepened by the atomic bomb.

Key developments: the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan (1947), the Berlin Blockade and Airlift (1948-49), NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact (1955), the Berlin Wall (1961), and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) — the closest approach to nuclear war, resolved by the removal of Soviet missiles in exchange for a US pledge not to invade Cuba and the quiet withdrawal of missiles from Turkey.

Worked example

“The League of Nations failed because it had no army.” How far do you agree?

SUPPORTING   could not enforce decisions against a determined aggressor
             Manchuria and Abyssinia both showed this directly

OTHER FACTORS
  USA absent          -> the strongest power outside the system
  Unanimity rule      -> any member could block action
  Self-interest       -> Britain and France put their own interests first
                         (Hoare-Laval Pact)
  Depression          -> nations turned inward and to aggression
  Slow procedures     -> crises outpaced the machinery

JUDGEMENT  the lack of force mattered, but only because the great powers
           lacked the WILL to act -- an army they would not deploy would
           have changed little

The judgement, not the list, carries the top band.

Common mistakes

Narrating events without explaining causation. Making claims with no specific supporting detail. Treating appeasement as simple cowardice with no counter-argument. Confusing the Truman Doctrine with the Marshall Plan. Answering “how far” questions without reaching a judgement. Evaluating a source by its type alone rather than its content and provenance.

Quick revision checklist

• State the main terms of Versailles and the differing aims of the Big Three.
• Explain the League’s successes, its failures over Manchuria and Abyssinia, and its structural weaknesses.
• Sequence 1933-39 with dates and assess appeasement from both sides.
• Explain the origins of the Cold War and the key crises to 1962.
• Answer “how far” questions by weighing factors and reaching a supported judgement.
• Evaluate sources on content, provenance and purpose, not type alone.