Level:
Correct: 0
Incorrect: 0
Marks: 0/0
Exam Practice
Subject:
Topics:
AQA GCSE History (Germany 1890-1945) Smart practice A mixed round aimed at your weak spots
Unit 1
Part one: Germany and the growth of democracy
Germany and the growth of democracy
Kaiser Wilhelm and the difficulties of ruling Germany
0%
Impact of the First World War
0%
Weimar democracy
0%
Unit 2
Part two: Germany and the Depression
Germany and the Depression
The impact of the Depression
0%
The failure of Weimar democracy
0%
The establishment of Hitler's dictatorship
0%
Unit 3
Part three: The experiences of Germans under the Nazis
The experiences of Germans under the Nazis
Economic changes
0%
Social policy and practice
0%
Control
0%
Avg
score:
–
Topics
done:
0/9

Impact of the First World War

Practise 45 exam-style questions on Impact of the First World War for AQA GCSE History (Germany 1890-1945). Write your answer as you would in the exam and get it marked in seconds against the mark scheme, point by point, with an AI tutor on hand if you get stuck.

  • 45 questions
  • 1–12 marks each
  • Instant marking
  • No sign-up needed
20 questions, marked as you go

Sample questions with model answers

Here are 4 of the questions in this topic, each with a model answer, an explanation of why it earns the marks and the mark scheme an examiner would use.

Question 1

2 marks

What was the 'stab in the back' myth?

Model answer

The 'stab in the back' myth was the false claim that the German army had not been beaten in battle in 1918 but had been betrayed by people at home, such as socialists, strikers, Jews and the politicians who signed the armistice, whom nationalists called the 'November Criminals'.

Explanation

German troops were still on foreign soil in November 1918 and the public had not been told how badly the war was going, so many believed the myth. Army leaders such as Hindenburg spread it, and it badly damaged the new republic.

Mark scheme
  1. 1 mark

    The claim that the German army had not been defeated on the battlefield in 1918.

    Accept 'the army could have fought on' or 'Germany was not really beaten'.

  2. 1 mark

    Instead, it had been betrayed at home by politicians who made peace - the 'November Criminals' - and by socialists, strikers or Jews.

    Credit any of the groups blamed (socialists, communists, strikers, Jews, the politicians who signed the armistice or the Treaty of Versailles).

Question 2

4 marks

Interpretation A: from a history book written for German schools, published in 1934. (Written for practice.)
The Treaty of Versailles was meant to destroy Germany. The enemy demanded 132 billion gold marks, a sum no nation could ever pay, and when Germany fell behind with deliveries of coal and timber the French seized the Ruhr. Reparations drained the nation's wealth year after year. They were the true cause of the terrible inflation of 1923, which robbed honest Germans of their savings. The weak politicians of the republic accepted this slavery instead of standing up for Germany.

Interpretation B: from a book on the German economy written by an economic historian in 2005. (Written for practice.)
Reparations were a burden, but they were not the main cause of Germany's inflation. The mark had already lost much of its value during the war, because the Kaiser's government paid for the fighting by borrowing and printing money instead of raising taxes. After 1918 governments went on spending far more than they collected, and Germany actually paid only a small part of the 132 billion gold marks. The collapse of 1923 came when the government decided to print money to pay the strikers in the Ruhr. It was a political choice as much as an economic disaster.

How does Interpretation B differ from Interpretation A about the part played by reparations in causing Germany's economic problems between 1919 and 1923? Explain your answer based on what it says in Interpretations A and B.

Model answer

Interpretation A argues that reparations were the main cause of Germany's economic problems. It says the 132 billion gold marks was a sum 'no nation could ever pay', that reparations 'drained the nation's wealth year after year', that falling behind with coal and timber deliveries led the French to seize the Ruhr, and that reparations were 'the true cause' of the inflation of 1923. Interpretation B disagrees. It accepts that reparations were 'a burden' but says they were 'not the main cause'. Instead it blames German governments: the mark had lost value during the war because the Kaiser's government borrowed and printed money rather than raising taxes, later governments spent far more than they collected, and in 1923 the government chose to print money to pay the Ruhr strikers. B also says Germany paid only 'a small part' of the total. So A blames the Allies and their demands, whereas B sees the problems as mainly the result of German decisions.

Explanation

Level 2 explains the difference in view with support from both interpretations: A's claim that impossible reparations were 'the true cause' against B's argument that war finance, overspending and printing money in 1923 mattered more. Comments on who wrote them are not needed here.

Mark scheme
  1. 4 marks

    Levels of response (4 marks).
    Level 2 (3-4 marks): Developed analysis of the interpretations: explains how they differ about the importance of reparations, supported by content from both, e.g. A argues that reparations were 'the true cause' of the inflation of 1923, an impossible sum meant to destroy Germany that drained its wealth and led to the Ruhr occupation, whereas B argues that reparations 'were not the main cause': the mark had lost value through wartime borrowing and printing money, post-war governments overspent, Germany paid only a small part of the sum, and the 1923 collapse came from the political choice to print money to pay the Ruhr strikers.
    Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple analysis: identifies a difference, e.g. A blames reparations and B blames the German government, with little or no support from the content.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): A says the treaty was 'meant to destroy Germany' and the sum was one 'no nation could ever pay'; A links missed deliveries of coal and timber to the French seizure of the Ruhr; A says reparations 'drained the nation's wealth year after year' and were 'the true cause' of the 1923 inflation; A blames the republic's 'weak politicians' for accepting 'this slavery'; B says reparations were 'a burden' but 'not the main cause'; B says the mark had already lost value during the war because of borrowing and printing money instead of taxes; B says governments after 1918 spent far more than they collected; B says Germany paid 'only a small part' of the 132 billion gold marks; B says the 1923 collapse was caused by printing money to pay the Ruhr strikers - 'a political choice'; so A blames the Allies, B mainly blames German governments' decisions.

Question 3

8 marks

Interpretation A: from the memoirs of a woman whose father was a retired civil servant in Hamburg, published in 1955. (Written for practice.)
My father had worked for the state for forty years and had put his savings into war loans and a bank account, as every respectable man did. By the autumn of 1923 those savings would not buy a postage stamp, and his pension was worth nothing by the time he had walked to the shops. My mother sold our furniture and her wedding silver, piece by piece, for food. People like us had done everything right and lost everything. My father never trusted the republic again.

Interpretation B: from an interview with the son of a Bavarian farmer, recorded in 1975. (Written for practice.)
For us the inflation was not such a bad time. People from the towns came out to the farm with clocks, pianos and fur coats to swap for eggs and potatoes, because money was useless and food was what everyone needed. My father had borrowed money to buy more land a few years before, and in 1923 he paid off the whole debt with a bundle of notes that was worth almost nothing. It depended who you were: if you owned things, you survived; if you had only money, you were finished.

Which interpretation gives the more convincing opinion about the effects of hyperinflation on the German people in 1923? Explain your answer based on your contextual knowledge and what it says in Interpretations A and B.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing about the experience of the middle classes. Prices rose at an incredible rate: a loaf of bread in Berlin cost 163 marks in 1922 but about 201 billion marks in November 1923. Anyone whose wealth was in savings or war loans saw it disappear, and pensioners such as A's father, living on fixed incomes, could no longer afford food. Many middle-class families sold their furniture, jewellery and other possessions to survive. A is also convincing about the political effects: many middle-class Germans blamed the republic for their ruin and never trusted it again, and some later turned to extremist parties. However, A only describes one group.

Interpretation B is convincing because it shows that hyperinflation did not affect everyone in the same way. Borrowers, including many farmers and home owners, paid off their debts and mortgages with almost worthless notes. Farmers had food, which kept its value, so townspeople bartered clocks and furniture for eggs and potatoes. Some businessmen did even better: Hugo Stinnes borrowed huge sums to buy up companies and repaid the loans in worthless marks. However, B's family were lucky. Workers suffered as wages failed to keep up with prices, unemployment rose in late 1923, and people in the towns went hungry.

Overall, B is more convincing as a view of the effects of hyperinflation on the German people as a whole, because it recognises that the effects depended on who you were - whether you held money or owned goods, land or debts. A is accurate for the middle classes and pensioners, and their bitterness had serious political consequences, but it presents one group's experience rather than the whole picture.

Explanation

Both interpretations are accurate for the people they describe, so a Level 4 judgement must be based on how far each represents the German people as a whole, tested with specific evidence about winners and losers. Either interpretation can be judged more convincing if the judgement is sustained and supported.

Mark scheme
  1. 8 marks

    Levels of response (8 marks).
    Level 4 (7-8 marks): Complex evaluation of both interpretations, using accurate contextual knowledge to test their arguments (e.g. the destruction of savings, war loans and pensions, rocketing prices, barter and the political cost to Weimar, against the gains made by borrowers, farmers, businessmen such as Stinnes and people with foreign currency), leading to a sustained judgement about which is more convincing about the effects of hyperinflation.
    Level 3 (5-6 marks): Developed evaluation of both interpretations, supported by relevant contextual knowledge, but the judgement is not sustained or one interpretation is evaluated in less depth.
    Level 2 (3-4 marks): Simple evaluation of one interpretation (or of both, based mainly on their content) supported by some relevant knowledge.
    Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic analysis: describes or paraphrases one or both interpretations, or asserts which is more convincing with little or no contextual knowledge.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): Supporting A: the price of a loaf of bread in Berlin rose from 163 marks in 1922 to about 201 billion marks in November 1923; by November a dollar cost about 4.2 trillion marks; bank savings and war loans became worthless, ruining the middle classes; pensioners and others on fixed incomes could not buy food; people sold possessions to survive; many middle-class Germans blamed the republic and lost faith in democracy, which helped extremist parties later. Supporting B: borrowers - including many farmers and home owners - paid off debts and mortgages with worthless money; farmers had food, which kept its value and could be bartered for valuables; businessmen such as Hugo Stinnes bought up companies with loans repaid in worthless marks; people with foreign currency bought property cheaply; the effects did depend on whether people owned goods or held money. Limits: A describes one middle-class family, though it was a common experience; B describes a fortunate group - workers also suffered as wages lagged behind prices and unemployment rose in late 1923, and townspeople went hungry. Possible judgements: B is more convincing overall because it recognises that effects varied by group; A is more convincing about the most widespread and politically important effect; each is convincing for the group it describes.

Question 4

12 marks

Which of the following was the more important reason why many Germans hated the Treaty of Versailles:
• the war guilt clause
• reparations?
Explain your answer with reference to both bullet points.

Model answer

The war guilt clause was an important reason why Germans hated the treaty. Article 231 forced Germany to accept responsibility for causing the war and all the loss and damage it had caused. Most Germans believed they had fought a defensive war, forced on them by France and Russia, and during the war they had been told that Germany was winning; German troops were still on foreign soil when the armistice was signed. So the clause seemed both a lie and a deep humiliation, an attack on the nation's honour. Germany had not been allowed to negotiate, so Germans called the treaty a 'Diktat', and they blamed the politicians who signed it, calling them the 'November Criminals'. War guilt also mattered because it was the justification for everything else in the treaty, including reparations.

Reparations were also a major reason for hatred. The treaty said Germany must pay for the damage caused by the war, and in 1921 the Reparations Commission set the total at 132 billion gold marks (£6,600 million), to be paid in money and in goods such as coal and timber. Germans saw this as a deliberate attempt to keep Germany poor for generations. Germany paid the first instalment in 1921 but soon fell behind, and in January 1923 France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr to take goods by force. This led to hyperinflation, which wiped out the savings of millions, and many Germans blamed reparations for their suffering. Even in Britain the economist Keynes argued that the demands were too harsh.

Overall, the war guilt clause was the more important reason. Reparations caused more practical hardship, especially in 1923, but they were hated partly because they rested on the claim that Germany was guilty. The amount was not even fixed until 1921, yet Germans were already furious about the treaty in 1919 because it branded them as guilty and dishonoured. The war guilt clause turned the treaty from a harsh peace into a national humiliation, which is why it was used by nationalists, including Hitler, throughout the Weimar years to attack the republic and the 'November Criminals'.

Explanation

Level 4 needs a sustained judgement based on developed explanations of both bullets. A strong argument uses chronology and links: Germans were already furious in 1919, before reparations were fixed in 1921, and war guilt was the basis on which reparations were demanded - though reparations had the greater practical effect by 1923.

Mark scheme
  1. 12 marks

    Levels of response (12 marks).
    Level 4 (10-12 marks): Complex explanation of both bullet points, supported by specific knowledge (e.g. Article 231, the belief that Germany had fought a defensive war, the humiliation of a 'Diktat' and the link between guilt and payment; the 132 billion gold marks fixed in 1921, payments in goods, the default and Ruhr occupation and the economic crisis of 1923), leading to a sustained judgement about which was more important.
    Level 3 (7-9 marks): Developed explanation of both bullet points, supported by relevant, accurate knowledge; any judgement is not sustained or is only asserted at the end.
    Level 2 (4-6 marks): Simple explanation of one or both bullet points, with some relevant knowledge; or a developed explanation of only one bullet point.
    Level 1 (1-3 marks): Basic explanation of one or both bullet points, e.g. 'Germany had to take the blame' or 'Germany had to pay', with limited knowledge.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): War guilt clause: Article 231 made Germany accept responsibility for causing the war and all the loss and damage; most Germans believed they had fought a defensive war against encirclement by France and Russia; they had been told throughout the war that Germany was winning, and troops were still on foreign soil at the armistice, so blame seemed unjust; it was a national humiliation, an attack on German honour; Germany had not been allowed to negotiate - a 'Diktat'; the clause was the legal basis for reparations and the other terms; the politicians who signed were called the 'November Criminals'; the Weimar government even set up an office to publish documents disputing war guilt. Reparations: the treaty said Germany must pay but the sum was fixed later, in 1921, at 132 billion gold marks (£6,600 million); payments in money and in goods such as coal and timber; Germany paid the first instalment in 1921 but struggled; falling behind led France and Belgium to occupy the Ruhr in January 1923; reparations were blamed (rightly or wrongly) for inflation and hyperinflation, which affected every German's life; the British economist Keynes argued in 1919 that reparations were too harsh; nationalists such as Hitler attacked the 'enslavement' of Germany. Other terms for context: loss of land, colonies and the 100,000-man army. Possible judgements: war guilt was more important because it was a matter of national honour and justified all the other terms, including reparations; or reparations were more important because they had practical effects on ordinary people's lives and led to the crisis of 1923; or war guilt mattered most in 1919 and reparations by 1923.

Ready to try the rest? Every answer you write is marked against the mark scheme, so you can see exactly where the marks are.

AI Tutor Hints first, answers after you try

Hi! Stuck? Ask me for a hint and I’ll help you work it out. Once you’ve checked your answer I can explain exactly where the marks are.