HISTORY B REVISION

Part A: Make sure you don't waste your time on this - it's only
worth 4 marks. Make 2 or 3 obvious points which you can
draw from the statement (but don't copy out what has been
said) and then make 1 or 2 'inferences' which is where you
can see that the source 'implies' something but does not
actually say it. E.g. If I said "I like vanilla ice cream but all
other flavours make me sick" then you could say "We can
infer from the source that Ben did not buy chocolate ice
cream recently as it "makes [him] sick".
Part B: Firstly start with a small one sentence introduction, something
like "Both Sources A and B support Source C to an extent". Then say a
few ways in which Source A agrees, supports or corroborates(really
good exam word which the examiners will love you for saying) source C,
then give a few ways in which Source A does not agree with, support,
back up or corroborate source C. Then start a new paragraph and do the
same for Source B. Then have a final paragraph with a conclusion
or judgement (you must do this to do well in the question) in which you
say the following: "In conclusion, both sources A and B agree with
source C..." but then you should say which source agrees more (or the
extent of agreement of the two sources): "however, Source A has a
stronger corroboration with source C than source B does as it says X
whereas Source B only says Y."
Oh yeah, always use lots of quotes. That's important.
Part C: Split this up into 3 paragraphs. Firstly, deal with the first source mentioned. Describe what you can
learn from the source, in terms of content. This can be a bit tricky but just draw as much from it as you can,
no matter how small. Then look at NOP - Nature (What kind of source is it? A first person witness? A
picture?), Origin (When was it made?) and Purpose (Why was it made?). These factors can add to the
usefulness of the Source (KEY WORD!!! I CANNOT STRESS THAT ENOUGH) or make it less useful. You can find
a lot of the NOP information in the provenance (saying "looking at the provenance, I can see..." will make
the examiner a happy bunny). Example: "Looking at the provenance, I can see that the Source was written 5
million years after the even happened. This means it is not entirely useful as it was not written at the time
(by the way, this is called a 'Secondary Source' and first-hand accounts are 'primary sources' but don't worry
too much about that), and so facts can be distorted or disputed over the years. However, it is an extract
from a school textbook and so the facts are likely to be accurate". Then do all of this for the second source in
a new paragraph. Then make a very important conclusion as a new paragraph where you assess which
sources are more useful - I always like to end like this "In conclusion, both sources are useful to an extent,
but they are most useful when used in conjunction with each other as they back each other up/show
contrasting views. However/also, the second source is a picture/photograph/cartoon/painting(it usually is)
and this immediately makes it less useful because X." Other things you should mention: Always look for a
subjective source (and use that word too for more examiner happiness!). For example, if you see a poster
made by the government, it is usually propaganda and therefore subjective which makes it less useful. Try to
not use the word 'bias' or 'biased' as all sources are biased! If you see statistics - say that it only shows one
section (mention other information which could be shown) and also mention if figures are only an
estimation. If the source is written by a politician see if it says which political party he belongs to and
comment on that in necessary. Oh yes and make sure you answer the question in a relevant manner - if the
question says how useful are these sources in learning about how tall people were in 1976, don't talk about
how heavy people were in 1976 (unless you're mentioning it as a negative point of the source, in which case
FOR THE LOVE OF GETTING THE GRADE YOU WANT TO GET, DO IT!).
Part D: This is where the real marks are worth - leave yourself about 15 minutes (or
more if you're a slow writer) to do this question. Before you start, grouping sources
together into 'themes', scribbling all over your sources booklet is a really good idea,
use a little code to make sure you can pick out which sources have the same reasons
for agreeing/not agreeing. Firstly, have a brief introduction saying if you agree with
the statement and why. It's usually a good idea to state that you agree with it to an
extent but that there are other factors involved, such as X,Y and Z. Lead with the
sources, and show all the sources which firstly disagree with the statement. Then add
a bit of your own knowledge and add to this factor. Then show any sources that
directly indicate that that was not the reason for whatever. Then say "However,
Source X states an alternative reason for whatever." Then add a bit of your own
knowledge on that. Then keep doing new paragraphs for each new reason which the
sources give. Make sure you use the last source as it won't have been used yet and
it's there for a reason. If there's any other factors you then know that the sources
don't mention - EXCELLENT! Say: "However - there are other reasons, such as X, Y, and
Z." Then make a conclusion and say I agree that the statement is ONE of the
causes/factors/reasons, but there are other reasons, such as XYZ mentioned in the
Sources and also ABC (your own knowledge). If you want to go for top marks you
could also mention usefulness of sources (like you did in part C) and then say that such
and such a factor is not as important as the sources which give that factor as a reason
are not as reliable/useful.
Some other general tips/hints: Don't waste any time, if you do everything properly
you'll be strapped for time so use every millisecond wisely. Use connectives (whereas,
however, moreover, conversely, nonetheless) to link paragraphs, to make sure your
work flows better. Also paragraph properly. Time management is important, make
sure you allocate the right amount of time according to how many marks the question
is worth. Don't ever say you completely agree or disagree with whatever, always
consider both sides and use a counter-argument wherever possible.  quote loads.
How far has the training of doctors changed in the period 1850 to the present day? Explain
your answer. [16]
You may use the following in your answer and any other information of your own.
In 1852 the Medical Registration Act was passed.
In 1876 the manometer, which measures blood pressure, was invented.
In 2005 40% of General Practitioners were female.

 ‘The government’s role in improving public health was more important during the nineteenth
century than during the twentieth century’. Do you agree? Explain your answer. [16]
You may use the following in your answer and any other information of your own.
1848: The first Public Health Act was passed.
1938: The government began a vaccination campaign to prevent diphtheria.
Since 1971 packets of cigarettes have carried a government health warning.

How important was technology in improving water supplies and sewage removal in towns
from 1350 to 1900? [16]
 1a What does Source A show you
about the impact of the Great
Depression on Germany?
Award 2 marks for 2 relevant selections from the
source

- A lot of people did not have a job

- Unemployment was rising
- In 1928 it was under 2 million and rose to over 6
million in 1932
- Number of unemployed rose every year between
1928-32
- Unemployment started to fall in 1933
 1b Use the information in Source B
and your own knowledge to explain
why many Germans voted for the
Nazis after 1929

1-2 – Generalised answer which copies the

source

3-4 – clear explanation of the content with an

attempt to provide context
What is wrong with this answer?
Many Germans voted for the Nazis after 1929 because
they promised jobs to the lower classes. Who were
losing theirs due to the Wall Street Crash.

Many Germans also voted for Hitler and the Nazis as

he was portrayed as a strong leader who would help
Germany to greatness again. The economic and
political problems were worsening making him look
like a strong leader. The richer classes did not wish for
the Communists to take over.
 Model answer
Many people voted for the Nazis after 1929 as due to the Great
Depression Germany was facing “political and economic problems” as
cited in Source B. Many people had lost their jobs and felt hopeless.
The Nazis promised work and hope which made people vote for them.

The Nazis also looked like a strong alternative to the weak Weimar
Government led by Bruning who were failing to deal with the economic
crisis as the political parties could not form strong coalitions hence the
political problems referred to in the source. This made people vote for
the Nazis as they wanted an alternative ruling party who would deal
with the crisis’ Germany was facing.

The Nazis also promised that they would crush Communism (and the
“Communist revolution”) which many middle class and richer Germans
feared as during this period the Communists, an extreme party, were
also gaining popularity in this time of crisis. So many voted for the Nazis
in order to crush this threat.
 1c How far does Source C support the
view that the Nazis started the
Reichstag Fire
LEVEL 1 - 1-2: Generalised answer which copied the
source

LEVEL 2 - 3-4: Discusses the content of the source with

an attempt at judgement on the set question

LEVEL 3 - 5: Answer addresses the issue clearly, using the

source and contextual knowledge to offer a judgement
Source C shows Goering in front of the burning Reichstag with a speak
looking menacing with the caption “Goering the executioner”). This
insinuates that Goering (a leading Nazi) set fire to the Reichstag on 27th Feb
1933 in order to blame the Communists (Marinus Van Der Lubbe) so that
they could be removed (executed)as opposition.
Although some may comment on the fact that the source has limitations
due to the fact that it is in a newspaper from the Nazi’s opposition (the
Communists) therefore, they may be lying in order to portray the Nazis in a
negative light I believe that the source’s content supports the view that the
Nazis started the Reichstag fire and blamed it on the Communists

Source C shows Goering in front of the burning Reichstag with a spear

looking evil.

Source C supports that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire as it shows
Goering (a leading Nazi) stood in front of the burning Parliament building
with a spear with the caption “Goering the executioner”. This supports the
view as it is saying that the Nazis were trying to destroy the Reichstag and
remove their opposition (the Communists) by blaming the fire on a
Communist plot led by Marinus Van Der Lubbe, a Dutch Communist who
received the blame for the fire
 How useful is source D to a historian studying the
reasons for the collapse of the Weimar republic in the
early 1930s (6)
1-2: General answer which copies source

3: Considers the usefulness of the source in terms of

CONTENT

4: Considers the CONTENT well and starts to

consider the ORIGIN of the source

5-6: Gives a reasoned evaluation considering the

usefulness in terms of CONTENT, ORIGIN AND
PURPOSE
 What is right with this answer?
What is wrong with this answer?
Source D is useful to a historian as it was written
in 1959, this means that the author’s memories
of the 1930s are still fairly fresh in his mind (so
what?). Also there are no restrictions on his
speech at this time (so what?). Furthermore he
has worked in the capital of Germany (Berlin) in
the early 1930s. (so what?).
Source D is useful to a historian studying the collapse of the Weimar Republic
as it tells us about how the weaknesses of the constitution were affecting the
Government. For example due to proportional representation the political
parties found it hard to gain a majority leading to weak coalitions and too
many political parties to make efficient decisions.
It also tells us how the Government were weak due to too much power being
handed to the old President (Hindenburg) with the use of Article 48. People
did not feel he was up to making important decisions therefore, people lost
trust in the Weimar Republic.

Furthermore, this source is useful as it is wrote by an American journalist in

1959 who lived in Berlin during the early 1930s as the Weimar Republic
collapsed. Therefore, he has first hand experience of seeing this happen so it
is a reliable source.

However, we may need to be wary of this source as it is wrote 20 years after

the event so his recollections, may be influenced by things he has read since.

Yet the source is also a reliable source as it was written in a book to inform
people of Hitler’s rise to power in 1959 (long enough after WW2 for it not to
be a form of propaganda) so his purpose will be to inform people accurately of
what happened and he will have researched his topic thoroughly to make sure
this is the case so overall I believe it to be a reliable and useful source.
Why do Sources E and F have different
views of the Night of the Long Knives
1-2: Generalised answer which copies the source

3-4: Makes a good judgement on one source with some

contextual support OR makes a weak judgement on both
sources

5-6: Attempts to consider the reliability of both views with

clear reference to the attributions

7-8: Balanced answer with good support from the sources

and their own knowledge. Detailed consideration of the
attributions of both sources
Source E and F provide different viewpoints of the Night of the Long Knives
where Hitler ordered the murder of 400 SA leaders and opposition to the
Nazis in July 1934. Some believe this was to gain support of the army whilst
others believe it was due to the fact the SA were plotting to overthrow
Hitler.
Source E is part of a report by Goering (a leading Nazi) who is reported to
have been threatened by the SA’s power. He has wrote this two days after
the Night of the Long Knives. He states that it was necessary to kill the SA
members as the SA were planning to overthrow Hitler.
Source F on the other hand is written by a modern historian many years
later in 1971 in a published history book. He states that the SA were not
plotting to overthrow Hitler and that this is evident from the fact there was
no opposition from the SA men when they were arrested.
These accounts will be different due to their origins. Source E may be bias
as it is written by a Nazi days after the event so will support the Nazi
message in order to explain to the public and others why these men were
murdered.
However, Source F is wrote by a historian who will have researched this
event well (as this is his job) and will probably have expert knowledge on
the subject. He has no reason to lie as he is writing to inform and not
persuade anyone to anything unlike Goering who is writing to persuade
people to the Nazi point of view and excuse the murders to gain public
support.
 Try to answer EITHER D or E in your
books
REMEMBER: consider

CONTENT

ORIGIN

PUROPSE