IGCSE History: International Relations 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 — this is a new qualification (first teaching September 2026, first examined May/June 2028) with no live past papers yet to reproduce — and examination boards hold copyright in their own mark schemes regardless. Use these alongside OxfordAQA’s own specimen assessment materials as the primary guide to question style. The five sources below are entirely invented for this exercise — none is a real historical document, and none should be treated or cited as one.

Related: International Relations Depth Studies revision notes

Paper 1 has two sections. Section A is entirely source-based (4, 6, 8 and 12 marks) and offers a choice of Peacemaking and the League of Nations, c1919–1939, or Crises of the Cold War, 1960–1975. Section B is knowledge-based (3, 6, 9 and 12 marks) and offers a choice of four options. The questions below illustrate both sections using the Peacemaking and League of Nations option for Section A and the Hitler’s foreign policy option for Section B — apply the same method to whichever options your centre has taught.

Section A’s sources. Five sources are used across the paper. A booklet of three of them is released in advance — on 1 February for the May/June series, or 1 July for the October/November series — and the other two are unseen until the exam. No notes or annotations may be brought in; a clean copy of all five is supplied on the day. Sources B, D and E below are the pre-released three; A and C are the unseen pair.

---

Section A — Peacemaking and the League of Nations (illustrative sources)

Source A (unseen): From a British newspaper editorial, June 1919, on the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

“Germany is made to sign, but not to negotiate. A peace imposed without discussion may satisfy our demand for justice today; whether it secures a lasting peace for our children is another question entirely.”

Source B (pre-released): From a League of Nations Council report on the situation in Manchuria, October 1932.

“The Council notes that Japanese forces remain in occupation of the territory. Members are reminded that the Covenant obliges all signatories to respect the territorial integrity of fellow members, but the Council possesses no armed force of its own with which to compel compliance.”

Source C (unseen): From a private letter written by a League of Nations official to a colleague, December 1935, on the crisis over Abyssinia.

“We drew up sanctions against Italy with one hand and, I am told, our own government was negotiating to hand Mussolini most of what he wanted with the other. I no longer know which policy we are actually pursuing.”

Source D (pre-released): From a French newspaper editorial, June 1919, on the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

“France asked for a settlement that would guarantee our security for a generation. What we have is a settlement that guarantees only that Germany will resent it. Justice and security are not the same demand, and today’s treaty answers neither in full.”

Source E (pre-released): From a memorandum circulated within the League of Nations Secretariat, 1936, reviewing the organisation’s response to the Abyssinian crisis.

“We applied economic sanctions but excluded oil, the one measure most likely to have stopped the invasion quickly. Two of our leading members continued to pursue a separate settlement with the aggressor throughout. An organisation that will not use its strongest tool against its own members’ wishes has told the world exactly how far it can be tested.”

1. Source A supports the claim that British opinion had doubts about the Treaty of Versailles from the moment it was signed. How do you know? [4]

2. How is Source A different to Source D about reactions to the Treaty of Versailles? Explain one difference. [6]

3. Why is Source C useful to a historian studying why the League of Nations struggled to respond to aggression in the 1930s? Use the source’s content, provenance and your own contextual knowledge to explain your answer. [8]

4. How far do Sources A, B, C, D and E support the view that the League of Nations was doomed to fail from the moment it was created? Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer. [12]

Section B — Hitler’s foreign policy, 1933–1941 (illustrative)

5. Give three ways Hitler broke the terms of the Treaty of Versailles between 1933 and 1936. [3]

6. Explain why Britain and France did not resist Germany’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. [6]

7. Explain two reasons why Britain pursued a policy of appeasement towards Germany in the 1930s. [9]

8. ‘Hitler’s own foreign-policy aims were the main reason war broke out in September 1939.’ How far do you agree? You must refer to Hitler’s own aims and at least one other cause in your answer. [12]

---

Answers

Section B’s 3-mark item is point-marked — one mark for each relevant feature identified, up to the maximum. Every other question below is marked with levels of response, not a tally of separate points — each level described rewards the quality of answer, not a checklist to total up.

1. (4 marks) Level 1 (1–2 marks): a general point in support of the claim lifted from the source, e.g. that the writer thought the treaty was unfair. Level 2 (3–4 marks): the claim supported using the source’s content, its provenance, and contextual knowledge together — for example, the phrase “made to sign, but not to negotiate” is a British editorial voice from June 1919, written as the treaty was actually signed, and its final sentence’s doubt about whether the peace will “last” shows the misgivings were present from day one rather than emerging only in hindsight, which is exactly what the claim asserts.

2. (6 marks) Level 1 (1–2): a difference stated without support from either source, e.g. that one source is more positive than the other. Level 2 (3–4): a difference identified and supported with content from both sources — Source A doubts the treaty will bring lasting peace, while Source D says the treaty fails to deliver even the security France demanded. Level 3 (5–6): the difference explained using the content of both sources and own knowledge together — Source A questions whether the treaty secures a lasting peace without disputing that Germany deserved some settlement, while Source D argues the treaty has failed to guarantee the security France specifically demanded; own knowledge that Britain lay more distant from the immediate threat of a resurgent Germany while France shared a border with it explains why each country’s doubts about the same treaty took a different form.

3. (8 marks) Level 1 (1–2): a general point about the source’s content, e.g. that the letter shows the League was inconsistent, with no use of provenance or own knowledge. Level 2 (3–4): content and provenance considered together — a private letter between officials is candid in a way a public statement would not be, and its date (December 1935) places it during the Hoare-Laval Pact controversy. Level 3 (5–6): content, provenance and contextual knowledge combined, with some explanation of why this makes the source useful — because the writer is an insider with no reason to flatter their own organisation, and because own knowledge confirms Britain and France really were secretly negotiating with Mussolini at this time, the source appears useful for showing that the League’s own leading members undermined its sanctions policy from within. Level 4 (7–8): content, provenance and contextual knowledge combined into a fully developed, sustained judgement on how useful the source is — building on Level 3’s point to explain specifically that the source is valuable for showing this was happening from within the League’s own ranks, not only that outsiders suspected it, which is what makes an insider’s private, candid account more useful here than a public statement would be.

4. (12 marks) Level 1 (1–3): a general assertion that the League was bound to fail, with little direct use of the sources. Level 2 (4–6): some use of two or three sources, limited own knowledge. Level 3 (7–9): a developed answer using most of the five sources with some own knowledge and an emerging judgement. Level 4 (10–12): all five sources and own knowledge fully integrated into a sustained judgement on “how far” — for example, arguing that Sources A and D show doubt was present in both victor states even at the treaty’s creation in 1919, Sources B, C and E show the structural weaknesses (no army, unanimity, members exempting their own strongest tool, members’ own self-interest) becoming fatal specifically in the 1930s crises, and own knowledge of the League’s 1920s successes (Åland Islands, Upper Silesia) shows the organisation was not doomed from day one so much as unable to survive determined aggression by major powers once it arrived.

5. (3 marks) One mark for each of three genuine breaches identified, e.g.: reintroducing conscription and building an army far larger than the 100,000 men the Treaty allowed (1935); remilitarising the Rhineland (1936); building an air force (Luftwaffe) in defiance of the Treaty’s ban. Any three creditable breaches within the stated dates score full marks; no further development is required or rewarded beyond identifying each one accurately.

6. (6 marks) Level 1 (1–2): a general reason with no development, e.g. “they were afraid of another war.” Level 2 (3–4): one reason explained with some support. Level 3 (5–6): a developed explanation with specific supporting detail throughout — for example, that Britain was militarily unprepared and did not want war over territory many in Britain believed was “only Germany’s own back yard,” so Hitler correctly judged that a swift, unopposed move carried little real risk.

7. (9 marks) Level 1 (1–3): one reason, stated generally. Level 2 (4–6): two reasons identified, each with some development. Level 3 (7–9): two reasons fully developed with specific supporting detail and a clear explanation of how each contributed to the policy — for example, that Britain was militarily unprepared and rearming, so avoiding war bought time to build up the armed forces, and that many in Britain believed the Treaty of Versailles had been unjust to Germany in the first place, so reversing some of its terms did not feel like a concession worth fighting over.

8. (12 marks) Level 1 (1–3): a general assertion with little explanation, e.g. “Hitler wanted war.” Level 2 (4–6): explains Hitler’s own aims but does not reach a second, separate cause. Level 3 (7–9): explains Hitler’s own aims and at least one other cause — most often appeasement, or the Nazi-Soviet Pact — with some linking between them. Level 4 (10–12): links Hitler’s aims to at least one other cause to evaluate their relative importance and reaches a sustained judgement — for example, arguing that Hitler’s own expansionist aims were the underlying cause, but that appeasement is what let each individual step (Rhineland, Anschluss, Sudetenland) succeed without cost, so that by the time Britain and France finally drew a line over Poland, Hitler had already been convinced by repeated experience that they would back down again, making the Nazi-Soviet Pact the final, calculated removal of the one risk — a two-front war — that might otherwise have given him pause.

---

Where marks are usually lost

• In Question 1, supporting the given claim with content alone, rather than combining content, provenance and contextual knowledge.
• In Question 2, describing what each source says without explaining the difference between them and, where possible, why it exists.
• Treating Question 3’s usefulness question as a request to list the source’s limitations — the board does not require this.
• In Section B, naming a factor or reason without developing it with specific dates, figures or named events.
• Giving only one reason on Question 7, which requires two.
• On Question 8, explaining Hitler’s own aims but never reaching the second, separate cause the question explicitly requires.
• Writing the 12-mark essays as a list of factors rather than a sustained judgement that links and weighs them against each other.