This document provides guidance on answering different types of questions for the IGCSE History Paper 1 exam. Part (a) questions are worth 4 marks and require describing historical events or aspects with factual details. Part (b) questions are worth 6 marks and require explaining why something happened or was important with a point, evidence, and explanation. Part (c) questions are worth 10 marks and require arguing both sides of an issue and coming to a conclusion. Sample answers are provided for each part to demonstrate the expected structure and level of detail.

1. IGCSE History
Paper 1

2. Understanding paper 1

3. • All questions are divided into A – B - C

6. Part (a) questions - describe
• Worth 4 marks
• ask you to describe historical
events, themes or aspects of
history using details and
knowledge in context
• Example questions:
What features of the Treaty of
Versailles were shared by the
other peace treaties of 1919–20?
What were the effects of the
Treaty of Trianon on Hungary?
Describe Hitler’s takeover of
Austria.

7. How to answer question (a):
Fact 1
Fact 2
Fact 3
Fact 4
Bonus fact
• The most relevant, specific and accurate information.
• You need to make 5 points.  You get one mark for each
relevant point
5 short paragraphs
OR
5 connected ideas
You should
spend 5 min
on each (a)
question

8. Sample answer

9. Part (B) questions- explain
• worth 6 marks
• ask you to explain why a specific
event or factor happened or why
it was important
• Example questions:
Why were the German people
unhappy with the Treaty of
Versailles?
Why did Wilson believe his
‘Fourteen Points’ should form
the basis of the Treaty of
Versailles?
Why, in 1939, did Stalin make a
deal with Germany rather than
with Britain or France?

10. How to answer question (b):
POINT: Direct answer, uses the qu- words, identifies the
reason
EVIDENCE: The most relevant, specific and accurate
information.
EXPLANATION: how this proves your point and links to
the question…
Therefore/ This shows
You need at least 2 x PEE paragraphs  explain 2 reasons
You could have a bonus paragraph
You should
spend 10
min on
each (b)
question

11. Sample answer
5 b)
First, Wilson was unsuccessful because he negotiated the peace settlement with Britain and
France. They both had empires and so self-determination was directly against their interests as it
would mean losing control of their colonies. They also had interests in increasing the size of their
empires by gaining Germany’s colonies.
Wilson also faced the problem that Eastern Europe particularly contained a huge ethnic mix
and there were no definite borders between the groups of people, so it was inevitable that many
people would be led by people from a different group. Wilson did not fully understand this and the
Treaty created a number of new countries, such as Czechoslovakia, which were very unstable
because of the ethnic mix.
Finally, the other leaders, especially Clemenceau, wanted to see Germany punished by taking
away some of their land. As a result, Germany lost 10% of its land and 12.5% of its population.
Therefore German people ended up being ruled by non-Germans in the countries surrounding
Germany, such as Poland.

12. Part (C) questions- Argue
• worth 10 marks
• ask you to provide a balanced
argument and conclusion about
historical events or factors
• Example questions:
Who was more satisfied with the
Treaty of Versailles: Clemenceau or
Lloyd George? Explain your
answer.
How far did the peace settlement
of 1919–20 reflect the aims of
Clemenceau? Explain your answer.
How successful was the British
Expeditionary Force? Explain your
answer.

13. How to answer question (c)
2 x PEE paragraphs TO AGREE
It could be argued...
POINT EVIDENCE
EXPLANATION
POINT EVIDENCE
EXPLAINATION
2 x PEE paragraphs TO DISAGREE
However, it could also be
argued
POINT EVIDENCE
EXPLANATION
POINT EVIDENCE
EXPLANATION
Then decide (conclusion)
Overall, however…
In conclusion,…
+ YOUR JUDGEMENT +
because...
You should
spend 20
min on
each (c)
question

14. Sample answer
On the one hand, it could be argued that the treaty was too harsh or due to the size of Reparations imposed on Germany.
Reparation of $6.6 billion were to be paid by Germany, and the country were already in economic difficulty after the First World War.
Unlike Britain and France, Germany had not raised taxes during the War in order to pay off their war debt, instead they planned to pay it
off with the reparations money from the defeated states. This meant that Germany was already in huge debt, and the reparations
together with the loss of important industrialised areas such as the Ruhr, led to economic trouble after the war. In fact, Germany faced
inflation and rising unemployment.
Another reason the Treaty of Versailles can be seen as too harsh is because of the ‘War Guilt Clause’. Article 231 of the Treaty
stated that Germany must take full responsibility for the start of the war. This was unfair as Germany was not the only state country that
started war, Serbia and Austria, for example, contributed also. This clause hurt Germany’s pride more than anything and they felt that
they were being scapegoated, when they weren’t the only country involved.
Finally, the treaty was also seen as too harsh for Germany since Wilson’s 14 points stated all countries must disarm, however,
Germany were the only ones who were forced to. The Germans felt this was hypocritical as no one else had been made to disarm to such
an extent, and that therefore the Treaty was unfair and too harsh.
On the other hand, it could also be argued that the Treaty of Versailles was fair because of the way Germany treated Russia in the
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. Russia lost 34% of its land and most of its valuable steel and coal industry. In comparison, Germany lost
13% of its land with the Treaty of Versailles. The harshness of this treaty made the Treaty of Versailles seem very lenient in comparison,
and the allies argued that Germany had no right to complain, as they too had imposed such a harsh treaty on another country.
Finally, another reason the Treaty of Versailles can be seen as not too harsh is because an important territory lost didn’t actually
belong to Germany. Alsace- Lorraine, an industrial region was given to France in the TOV, it had rich iron and steel and Germany
resented its being taken away. However Alsace-Lorraine had originally belonged to France, and France were just being returned what
was rightfully theirs. Therefore, Germany had no right to complain about the loss of Alsace-Lorraine and this section of the Treaty was
not too harsh.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh, because the harshness of the Treaty of
Brest Litovsk meant that Germany had no right to complain of the about the punishment they received, as they had inflicted greater