Secondary 3 History Practice Paper 3

TuitionGoWhere Practice Paper - History Secondary 3

Answer Key and Marking Scheme (Version 3)

Paper: Source Based Skills – Practice Paper Total Marks: 50

---

Question 1(a): Source A – Message [5 marks]

Award 1 mark for each valid inference supported by source details, up to 5 marks.

Model Answer:

The cartoonist’s message is that the British policy of appeasement is naive and ineffective in preventing war. The cartoon shows a large storm cloud labelled “WAR” looming over a peaceful English village, suggesting that war is an imminent and overwhelming threat. The man representing the British government holds a tiny umbrella labelled “APPEASEMENT”, which is clearly inadequate to protect against the coming storm. The caption “Still hoping for the best” implies that the government is relying on wishful thinking rather than realistic preparation. The raindrops already falling on the man suggest that the danger has already begun and appeasement has failed to stop it. The cartoonist is therefore criticising the government for failing to face the reality of the Nazi threat.

Marking Notes:

• L1 (1-2 marks): Describes the source without clear inference of message.
• L2 (3-4 marks): Identifies the message with some supporting details.
• L3 (5 marks): Clearly explains the message with specific, well-linked details from the source.

---

Question 1(b): Source A – Usefulness [6 marks]

Award marks for explaining both what the source can and cannot tell us.

Model Answer:

Source A is useful in showing contemporary British public and media opinion about appeasement. As a cartoon from a major British newspaper, it reveals that some sections of British society were critical of the government’s policy and believed it would not prevent war. The cartoon’s imagery of the tiny umbrella against a massive storm cloud effectively captures the argument that appeasement was a weak response to a serious threat.

However, the source has limitations. It is a cartoon, which by its nature simplifies complex issues and uses exaggeration for effect. It represents one cartoonist’s opinion and cannot be taken as evidence of what all British people thought. It also does not explain why the government pursued appeasement, such as Britain’s military unpreparedness or the memory of World War I casualties. A historian would need to cross-reference this source with government documents, speeches, and other evidence to get a fuller picture of British policy in 1938.

Marking Notes:

• L1 (1-2 marks): General comments on usefulness without specific reference to the source.
• L2 (3-4 marks): Explains usefulness with some reference to source content or provenance, but one-sided.
• L3 (5-6 marks): Balanced evaluation explaining both what the source reveals and its limitations, with specific reference to the source and context.

---

Question 2: Source B – Attitude [5 marks]

Award 1 mark for each valid point about Chamberlain’s attitude, supported by source details.

Model Answer:

Chamberlain’s attitude towards the prospect of war is one of deep reluctance and horror. He describes the situation as “horrible, fantastic, incredible”, showing his disbelief that war could be considered over a “quarrel in a far-away country”. He declares himself “a man of peace to the depths of my soul” and calls armed conflict “a nightmare”, revealing his personal abhorrence of war. However, his attitude is not purely pacifist; he acknowledges that if a nation sought to “dominate the world by fear of its force”, it “must be resisted”. This shows he is not opposed to war under all circumstances, but believes the threshold for war must be very high. Overall, his attitude is one of cautious, reluctant willingness to consider war only as a last resort, combined with a strong emotional desire to avoid it.

Marking Notes:

• L1 (1-2 marks): General or simplistic description of attitude.
• L2 (3-4 marks): Identifies attitude with some supporting evidence.
• L3 (5 marks): Explains attitude with nuance, using specific words/phrases from the source.

---

Question 3: Sources C and D – Differences [7 marks]

Award marks for identifying and explaining differences in content, tone, purpose, and context.

Model Answer:

Sources C and D are different in several significant ways.

Firstly, their content and tone are completely different. Source C is a secret military memorandum warning that Germany is not ready for war. General Beck states that Germany’s “military-economic situation… is bad” and that launching a war “would be to invite disaster”. The tone is urgent, serious, and pessimistic about Germany’s capabilities. In contrast, Source D is a public photograph showing Chamberlain and Hitler shaking hands and smiling after signing the Munich Agreement. The tone is positive, friendly, and suggests successful diplomacy and peace.

Secondly, their purposes are different. Source C was produced to advise Hitler against military action, based on a realistic assessment of Germany’s military weakness. Its purpose was internal, secret, and intended to influence decision-making at the highest level. Source D, however, was a public image intended to show the world that peace had been achieved through negotiation. It served a propaganda purpose for both leaders: Chamberlain could show he had secured “peace for our time”, while Hitler could present himself as a reasonable statesman.

Thirdly, the impression they give of the situation in 1938 is contradictory. Source C suggests Germany was weak and should avoid war, while Source D suggests Germany was a confident equal negotiating with Britain. A historian would note that Source C, being secret, is likely more reliable about Germany’s true position, while Source D is a staged public relations moment.

Marking Notes:

• L1 (1-2 marks): Identifies differences based on content only, without explanation.
• L2 (3-5 marks): Explains differences with reference to content and/or purpose, but may lack depth or balance.
• L3 (6-7 marks): Explains differences in terms of content, tone, purpose, and context, with specific details from both sources.

---

Question 4: Source E – Purpose [7 marks]

Award marks for explaining Churchill’s purpose, using source details and contextual knowledge.

Model Answer:

Winston Churchill made this speech to criticise the Munich Agreement and to warn the British government and public about the consequences of appeasement. He describes the agreement as “a total and unmitigated defeat”, directly contradicting Chamberlain’s claim that it brought “peace for our time”. His purpose was to challenge the government’s narrative and to awaken Parliament and the public to the dangers he saw ahead.

Churchill uses powerful, emotive language to achieve this purpose. He describes Czechoslovakia as “silent, mournful, abandoned, broken”, evoking sympathy and guilt to highlight the moral cost of the agreement. He warns that “this is only the beginning of the reckoning” and speaks of a “bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year”, using metaphor to predict future German demands and eventual war. His call for “a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour” reveals his purpose was also to urge Britain to rearm and stand firm against Hitler.

From contextual knowledge, Churchill had been a consistent critic of appeasement throughout the 1930s, warning about the Nazi threat while out of government. His speech reflects his long-standing belief that Hitler could not be trusted and that concessions would only encourage further aggression. The speech was intended to persuade his audience that a change of policy was urgently needed.

Marking Notes:

• L1 (1-2 marks): General comments on purpose without specific source reference.
• L2 (3-5 marks): Explains purpose with some reference to source language and/or context.
• L3 (6-7 marks): Clearly explains purpose with detailed analysis of language and contextual knowledge.

---

Question 5: All Sources – Evaluation [20 marks]

Award marks for a balanced, well-structured argument that uses all sources and reaches a supported conclusion.

Model Answer:

Introduction The statement that appeasement was “reasonable and justified” requires careful evaluation. The sources offer a range of perspectives, with some supporting the idea that appeasement was a pragmatic response to difficult circumstances, while others strongly challenge it as a dangerous and morally questionable policy. Overall, the sources provide more evidence against the statement than for it, though they do reveal some reasons why appeasement was pursued.

Sources Supporting the Statement Source B provides the strongest support for the reasonableness of appeasement. Chamberlain’s speech reveals a leader genuinely horrified by the prospect of war, describing it as a “nightmare” and questioning whether a “quarrel in a far-away country” justified conflict. His words reflect the widespread desire to avoid another world war after the trauma of 1914-1918. This suggests appeasement was a rational response to public sentiment and the memory of past suffering.

Source C, the secret memorandum from General Beck, also indirectly supports the statement by revealing that Germany itself was not ready for a major war in 1938. Beck’s warning that Germany’s “military-economic situation… is bad” suggests that, from the German perspective, war was not imminent. However, British leaders did not have access to this secret document, so while it retrospectively supports the idea that war could have been avoided, it does not justify British policy based on what they knew at the time.

Source D, the photograph of Chamberlain and Hitler shaking hands, captures the public face of appeasement: a moment of apparent diplomatic success. The smiling leaders suggest that negotiation had achieved peace, which would have seemed reasonable and justified to a war-weary public. The photograph represents the hope that appeasement could work.

Sources Challenging the Statement Source A strongly challenges the statement. The cartoonist depicts appeasement as a tiny, inadequate umbrella against a massive storm cloud of war. The message is clear: appeasement is a foolish, wishful-thinking policy that will not prevent the coming conflict. The raindrops already falling suggest the policy has already failed. This source argues that appeasement was not reasonable but dangerously naive.

Source E provides the most powerful challenge. Churchill’s speech condemns the Munich Agreement as “a total and unmitigated defeat” and warns that it is “only the beginning of the reckoning”. He argues that far from being reasonable, appeasement has “deranged” the equilibrium of Europe and will lead to further demands. His prediction that a “bitter cup” would be offered “year by year” proved tragically accurate when Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and invaded Poland in September 1939. Churchill’s speech suggests appeasement was not only unreasonable but morally wrong, abandoning Czechoslovakia to Nazi rule.

Weighing the Evidence In evaluating the sources, their provenance is crucial. Source B, while genuinely reflecting Chamberlain’s motives, is a public speech designed to justify government policy; it may not reveal the full strategic calculations. Source D is a staged photograph for public consumption, not a reliable record of the real diplomatic situation. Source C, though revealing, was secret and unknown to British decision-makers. Sources A and E, while representing critical opinions, proved more accurate in their predictions. Churchill’s warning in Source E was vindicated by subsequent events, giving his critique greater weight in hindsight.

Conclusion The sources provide some evidence that appeasement was pursued for understandable reasons: fear of war, military unpreparedness, and public opinion. However, the weight of evidence, particularly from Sources A and E, challenges the idea that it was truly “reasonable and justified”. The policy failed to prevent war, sacrificed Czechoslovakia, and may have encouraged Hitler’s aggression. Therefore, the sources do not, on balance, support the statement; they reveal appeasement as a policy born of fear and hope, but ultimately misguided and disastrous.

Marking Notes:

• L1 (1-5 marks): Describes sources without evaluation; no clear argument.
• L2 (6-10 marks): Some evaluation but lacks balance or fails to use all sources; argument underdeveloped.
• L3 (11-15 marks): Balanced evaluation using most sources; clear argument with some supporting evidence.
• L4 (16-20 marks): Sustained, balanced evaluation using all sources; well-structured argument with specific evidence; reaches a supported conclusion.

---

END OF ANSWER KEY