The Twentieth Century, 1919–1989: Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: The Twentieth Century, 1919-1989 study guide

---

Section A

1. Describe the aims of two of the “Big Three” at the Paris Peace Conference. [6]

2. Describe the structure and membership of the League of Nations. [6]

Section B

3. “Hitler’s foreign policy was entirely to blame for the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939.” How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [10]

4. Explain why the wartime alliance between the USA and the USSR broke down between 1945 and 1948. [10]

5. Explain two reasons for the League of Nations’ failure to resolve the Manchurian and Abyssinian crises of the 1930s. [8]

6. Explain why the Berlin Blockade (1948–49) was a turning point in relations between the USA and the USSR. [8]

---

Answers

1. Any two: Wilson aimed for a settlement based on his Fourteen Points and self-determination, seeking a lasting peace rather than punitive terms [1] [1] [1]. Clemenceau wanted Germany permanently weakened to protect French security, given France’s direct experience of invasion [1] [1] [1]. Lloyd George sought a settlement firm enough to satisfy British public opinion but not so harsh that it would destabilise Europe and damage post-war trade [1] [1] [1].

2. The League was created as part of the peace settlement with the aim of preventing future war through collective security [1] [1]. Its structure included an Assembly (all member states), a Council (permanent and rotating members with greater power), and a Secretariat [1] [1]. Membership was limited — the USA never joined despite Wilson’s role in founding it, and Germany and the USSR were excluded or joined only later, which weakened its authority from the start [1] [1].

3. Award marks for a balanced answer that weighs Hitler’s foreign policy against other factors. Hitler’s responsibility: rearmament in breach of Versailles, remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria, the Sudeten crisis and Munich Agreement, and the invasion of Poland show a consistent pattern of aggressive expansion [1] [1] [1]. Other factors: the failure of appeasement by Britain and France emboldened Hitler to take greater risks [1] [1]; the weakness of the League of Nations, exposed by Manchuria and Abyssinia, removed a check on aggression [1] [1]; the terms of Versailles itself created German resentment that Hitler exploited [1] [1]. A strong answer reaches a supported judgement rather than simply listing causes on both sides.

4. The alliance was based on the shared aim of defeating Nazi Germany, which disappeared once that goal was achieved in 1945 [1] [1]. Disagreements emerged over the post-war occupation of Germany and reparations [1] [1]. Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe by 1948, installing communist governments in states liberated by the Red Army, alarmed the USA and Britain, who saw this as a breach of wartime promises of free elections [1] [1]. Ideological differences — capitalism versus communism — that had been set aside for the war resurfaced once the common enemy was gone, hardening into mutual suspicion by 1948 [1] [1].

5. Any two: the League had no standing army, so it could not enforce its decisions with force against Japan in Manchuria or Italy in Abyssinia [1] [1] [1]. Key powers pursued self-interest over collective security — Britain and France were unwilling to risk war with Italy over Abyssinia given the wider international climate of the 1930s [1] [1] [1]. The League’s economic sanctions were incomplete and inconsistently applied (e.g. oil sanctions against Italy were not imposed), reducing their effectiveness [1] [1].

6. The USSR’s blockade of West Berlin was intended to force the Western powers out of the city, but the Berlin Airlift successfully supplied the city by air for nearly a year, which was seen as a clear Western victory and a Soviet failure [1] [1] [1]. It hardened the division of Germany and Europe into opposing blocs, directly contributing to the formation of NATO (1949) and the separate West and East German states [1] [1] [1]. It demonstrated that neither side was willing to risk direct military conflict, establishing a pattern of confrontation through proxy actions rather than direct war that characterised much of the rest of the Cold War [1] [1].

Section C

7. Explain two reasons why the Solidarity movement in Poland was significant for the decline of Soviet control over Eastern Europe. [8]

Answer: Solidarity was significant because it was the first independent trade union movement to emerge and survive within the Soviet bloc, demonstrating that organised opposition to communist rule could exist and gain mass popular support rather than being immediately suppressed [1] [1] [1] [1]. It also showed that the Soviet Union was no longer willing or able to intervene militarily to crush internal dissent in a satellite state as it had in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), signalling a real shift in Soviet policy under Gorbachev toward tolerating internal reform rather than enforcing uniform control by force [1] [1] [1] [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing Hitler’s actions in isolation for question 3 without weighing appeasement and the League’s weakness as contributing factors — the question explicitly asks “how far,” which requires balance.
• Naming League of Nations weaknesses without linking them to the specific outcome in Manchuria or Abyssinia.
• Treating the breakdown of the US-Soviet alliance as caused only by ideology, missing the concrete disputes over occupied Germany and Eastern Europe.
• Describing the Berlin Blockade’s events without explaining its significance as a turning point.