CAMBRIDGE A-LEVEL HISTORY

9489/1 SOURCE BASED PAPER 1

[NATIONALISM IN GERMANY] 2020-2021
ANSWERING SOURCE BASED QUESTIONS
“ It is with the sources that any account of the historian’s work must begin…”

J. TOSH , The Pursuit of History.

 Documents are the raw material for a history Candidate. The key to answering
document questions successfully is to learn to ask questions of the documents in
front of you. A number of source based skills are used to interrogate sources. Source
based is an exercise in handling primary material which is presented in the
examination paper. This paper depends more on interpretation, evaluation and
integration of sources. It relies on Learner’s ability to use sources, to discuss a
problem and come to a judgement.
 Candidates need to understand that it is through interrogation (asking questions) of
sources that historical evidence is produced. A source, therefore, is anything has
potential to answer questions that historians pose about the past. When historians
draw on that potential, we have what is referred to as historical evidence.

STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER

Time: 9489-[1 hr 15 mins]

PART A: Compare and contrast two sources regarding their attitude towards a

particular issue.

PART B: Use all the four sources plus contextual knowledge to develop a reasoned,

balanced and explicit argument.

1
 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
1. ANALYSIS-implies detailed examination of sources by studying a source, work out
how/why it might be useful.
2. EVALUATION-to give value, to decide whether a source is useful for answering a
question and ultimately if it is reliable. Evaluation involves weighing up evidence to
determine which of the two pieces of evidence appears to be more accurate and
reliable.

SOURCE BASED SKILLS

 AUTHOR WHO wrote it?
 DATE WHEN was it written?
 MOTIVE WHY was it written?
 PURPOSE WHAT does it actually say…main message.
 AUDIENCE WHO was the intended audience?
 NATURE WHAT is it? …the type.[primary or secondary]
 TONE WHAT is the language of the source?
 CONTEXT WHAT is the context?...background evidence/knowledge
ie own knowledge/subject matter on the topic.
 CONTENT WHAT is the content of the sources? …knowledge of the
sources ie details/subject matter in the sources.

CANDIDATES must apply the above skills to test RELIABILITY of the Sources on source
Evaluation.

PLANNING
 Candidates are advised firstly, to spend ten minutes reading the two
questions and sources thoroughly, at least twice.
 Candidates then should spend at least Five minutes planning PART A of
9489/1 Comparison Question. ie writing a brief outline the main qualities,
similarities and differences in the sources. Thereafter, Candidates must
spend twenty [20] minutes writing the answer.
 Candidates are also advised to spend at least Five minutes [5] planning PART
B of 9389/1 Grouping of sources Question. ie Candidates must jot down
sources which support the statement and sources which do not support the
statement. Candidates can use their plan to show how far the individual
sources either agree or disagree with the claim in the question. Candidates
must note the weight of evidence and make provenance of their usefulness.

2
  Thereafter, Candidates must spend thirty [35] minutes writing a balanced
answer, including source detail, contextual detail and evaluation, with a
balanced conclusion.

NB: When EVALUATING the sources in both PARTS A and B, ask these critical questions:

1. Is the source relevant to the topic of question? An examiner is unlikely to set a

source that is completely pointless.
2. What information does it give which is useful in answering the question set?
3. Does this information give you a complete picture or are there still some gaps and
questions unanswered?
4. Does the source support your own knowledge of an event? This is very important. If
your knowledge can help you understand a source, then use it! You can’t get a high
grade if you just use your own knowledge or just the sources!

ANSWERING TECHNIQUE FOR PAPER 1 QUESTIONS.

PART A [COMPARING ANY TWO SOURCES]

 No introduction is needed.

 PARAGRAPH 1
Candidates must identify one similarity [in relation to the given Question] The point
must be the topic sentence. The topic sentence should be followed by quotations
from the two sources regarding evidence of similarities. The quotations will be
followed by analysis of the point using details in the sources [content of the
sources] and own knowledge.[context of the sources] The analysis should relate to
the given question. For example:

On the one hand, Sources A and B both show a positive attitude towards liberalism through
advocating for independence. [topic sentence] In Source A, Metternich suggested that
German states had to be “ …sovereign ” while consisting with their own “ rulers…” and “
…administrators.” [quotations] As such, the 39 states reduced at Vienna were to be
autonomous. However this submission by Metternich should be treated with hindsight as
Metternich was proposing autonomy under the guise of a manipulated Diet! Similarly, in
Source B, there is a suggestion that the “ …people” [quotation] were sovereign. Using my
own knowledge, the sovereignty of the German states were guaranteed under Prussian
leadership. William 1 wielded a lot of authority as well as the German Princes.

3
 In the sources, Metternich made it clear that these arrangements were temporal hence the
two sources show the idea that in future the possibility of German unification could be a
reality. However, Metternich’s account cannot be trusted as he was anti liberal and he could
have been using this platform to silence the growing voices of liberalism. [Source analysis]

 PARAGRAPH 2. Candidates must identify a difference [contrast] in relation to the

given question. The point must be the topic sentence. The approach is similar to that
of paragraph 1.
 LAST PARAGRAPH. Candidates must evaluate the two given sources by using the
source based skills…at least three per source by asking the following questions….
Where does the source come from? What is the significance of the author? Date?
Type of source? How relevant is it ie What is the provenance of the source and its
content?
 They should determine the most credible between the two. NB: This is the most
important paragraph. For instance:

Source A is a part of Metternich’s speech consisting of proposals to the German

Confederation. Metternich himself was anti liberal thus his proposals were deeply
subjective and propagandistic. The source is thus one sided by being intensely
negative towards liberalism. The author was an interested party which also
disqualifies the source as untrustworthy. Source B is a speech by a radical who is
crying foul over the suppression of liberal ideas. The radical like Metternich is a
patriot hence the source is equally questionable. Moreover, the speech was made at
a national festival which the author could have been using as a platform to launch
propaganda to persuade citizens to revolt against Austrian domination. Thus the
radical is also biased towards liberalism. However, Source B has shown a balanced
account of the desire by liberals to unite Germany and the need for liberals to follow
proper channels to air out their grievances. Overall, Source B is more credible than
Source A due to its objective appeal.

CONCLUSION: JUDGEMENT
The PART A questions ask “ How far…” Candidates must therefore assess the extent of
either agreement or disagreement. This would be followed by qualifying of the given
hypothesis in the Question. For instance:

To a larger extent, the overall attitude was thus negative as both sources saw futility in any
attempts to advance liberal ideas. This was due to a glaring division of the nationalists at
that time but more because of the repressive measures of Metternich that made it almost
impossible for nationalists to manoeuvre. However, nationalists also had a window of hope
thorough revolts and debate.

4
 PART B [GROUPING OF SOURCES]
 An introduction is needed. Candidates must show Sources that agree and disagree
with the Question/hypothesis. Simultaneously Candidates must also highlight
Neutral sources if any. For example:
Sources B and D have compelling evidence that Bismarck was interested only in
expansion of Prussia. Source C in contrast assert that Bismarck wanted total
unification from the onset. Source A ‘ sits on the fence’ by providing evidence
suggesting that Bismarck initially had limited goals but changed aims as events
unfolded.

PARAGRAPH 1: SOURCES THAT AGREE

Candidates must cross reference sources and show the extent of agreement with
the hypothesis. They must Quote/cite from the Sources to show evidence of
agreement with hypothesis. Candidates must also corroborate what is in the Sources
with own knowledge. [content and context] For example:

Sources B and D highlight Bismarck as a Prussian patriot first and foremost.[Point of

agreement] In Source B, “ Bismarck was a Junker to the bone…” Junkers were deeply
patriotic and detested people of other regions. They basically believed that Prussia
was unique and should be equated among major powers. In Source D, Bismarck
advanced Prussian aggrandisement by “ …elevating the Prussian Diet to be
supreme…” [QUOTES from the SOURCES] From my own knowledge Bismarck was an
apostle of Prussian nationalism and he believed that an enlarged Prussia must
champion the course of German unification. During this time in the 1860s, Bismarck
modernised the Prussian army so that it could be instrumental in the quest for
unification. Prussian economic prowess was also central to Bismarck’s aims.[OWN
KNOWLEDGE]
However Source B must be considered with hindsight as it is subjective owing to the
context it was written. The period was characterised by Zollverein achievements
hence Bismarck simply was using Prussia as a doyen for dominance. Subsequently,
Source D can be credited for being accurate as the French ambassador visiting
Prussia at that time had first hand details of Bismarck’s ideas after interacting with
him on a personal level. It can also be underscored that Bismarck could not falsify his
intention since he needed French support at that stage. [SOURCE BASED SKILLS
EVALUATION]Thus Sources A and D focuses on Bismarck’s primary intentions of
enlarging Prussia thereby ultimately unifying Germany in the process.[LINKAGE]
PARAGRAPH 2 will also be based on agreement and will follow the format of the first
paragraph. Lastly Candidates must EVALUATE ie test reliability of the evidence
highlighted by the sources by using source based skills whether the sources are
objective or not.

5
 PARAGRAPH 3: SOURCES THAT DISAGREE
In the third paragraph, Candidates must analyse evidence from the disagreeing
Sources using the format in Paragraph 1. Paragraph 4 will be a continuation of
previous paragraph. Candidates must EVALUATE the disagreeing Sources using
Source based skills.
NB: The most critical aspect on PART B questions is Source ANALYSIS and
EVALUATION. Level 5 [21-25] answers are judged on the merit of the above skills.
ANALYSIS and EVALUATION require both OWN KNOWLEDGE and SOURCE BASED
SKILLS.

CONCLUSION/JUDGEMENT
Conclusion will give the judgement. Judgement highlights whether the given
hypothesis is valid or if the contrary is more plausible. Candidates must highlight
their line of argument ie to side with agreeing Sources or disagreeing sources.
Candidates must JUSTIFY why they have accepted their preferred line of agreement.
It is at this point that CANDIDATES may MODIFY the hypothesis ie to suggest an
alternative hypothesis in line with what the Sources are suggesting. For instance:

All in all, the opposing sources have offered the strongest argument that a plethora of
factors must be indicated as prime obstacles to German unity. Austrian role was nonetheless
key but the bigoted leadership of Prussia also was another pivotal factor. Thus, the
hypothesis can be modified to say that the main obstacle to German unification alternatively
were a myriad of factors, not just merely Austrian role.

FOR 9489 CANDIDATES 2020-2021