Answer one question from one section only. Section C: International option The League of Nations and international relations in the 1920s 3 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A In this single area of Northern France, which includes several large cities, 40 per cent of all property has been destroyed. In thirty-two districts here from 40 to 90 per cent of the houses have been shattered by cannon, and in fifty-nine not one building in ten is standing. In many towns, when the Germans left, there was no bedding or household utensils. There was nothing. Cities reduced to rubble, miles of soil poisoned by gas, planted with shells and barbed wire, blasted as by a volcanic eruption, this was the concern of governments. Above all, France felt, it was the responsibility of Germany. As a French soldier said on viewing the devastation, ‘After all, only the ruins are German; the soil is French!' The ruins are German, and it will pay. From an American Red Cross report by Ruth Gaines, February 1919. Ruth Gaines served in France as an aid worker from 1917 to 1919. Source B We came to Versailles expecting the peace of justice which had been promised. We were shocked when we read the demands, the victorious violence of our enemies. This Treaty is more than the German people can bear. The purely German district of the Saar must be detached from our Empire, and the way prepared for its annexation to France, although we owe debts in coal only, not in people. For fifteen years the Saar must be occupied, and after those fifteen years the Allies have power to refuse to return it. Meanwhile, the Allies can take every measure to cut the economic and moral links with the mother country and may finally attempt to misrepresent the wishes of the local population. Germany, thus cut in pieces and weakened, must declare itself ready to bear all the war expenses of its enemies, which would exceed many times over the total amount of German state and private assets. A letter from the leader of the German delegation (Brockdorff-Rantzau) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau) in Versailles, 29 May 1919. Source C The German delegation has seriously misinterpreted the economic and financial conditions. The Allied Powers do not intend to strangle Germany nor to prevent it from taking its proper place in international trade. These proposals limit German payments to what is clearly justifiable under the terms of armistice in respect of damage caused to Allied civilians by German aggression. In the Saar, the regime proposed by the Allied Powers is to continue for fifteen years. This arrangement is necessary both for reparations in general, and so France may have compensation for the deliberate destruction of its northern coal mines. At the end of fifteen years the mixed population, who in the meanwhile will have had control of local affairs under the governing supervision of the League of Nations, will have complete freedom to decide whether they wish for union with Germany, union with France, or to continue the regime established by the Treaty. A reply from Clemenceau to Brockdorff-Rantzau's letter (Source B), 16 June 1919. Source D Whole areas of Germany will be entirely deprived of their liberty. They will be under a committee of foreign domination, without adequate representation. The financial burden is so heavy that it is no exaggeration to say that Germany is reduced to economic slavery. The Germans will have to work hard for foreign masters, without any chance of personal gain, or any prospect of regaining liberty or economic independence. This peace is a mockery of President Wilson's principles. Trusting in these, Germany accepted peace. That confidence has been betrayed; the present happenings are a deep humiliation, not only to all governments and nations concerned in this peace offer, but to all humanity. Bound and enslaved, Germany will always remain a menace to Europe. From an editorial in a Dutch newspaper, June 1919. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2024). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [15] Indicative content: Similarities: Both sources agree on the main facts: they show that the Saar will be separated from Germany for 15 years.
2. [15] Similarities: Both indicate that the population will be consulted at the end of this period.
3. [15] Similarities: They agree the purpose is to compensate France by providing coal.
4. [15] Differences: Source B maintains that the Allies will occupy the area and suggests the inhabitants will be oppressed and manipulated, with the aim to 'cut the economic and moral links' with Germany. Source C is far more positive; it emphasises that the people of the Saar will have 'control of local affairs' and that the regime will be ‘the governing supervision of the League of Nations'.
5. [15] Differences: The French leader in Source C emphasises the population's 'complete freedom to decide' their situation after 15 years. Source B claims that the Allies may 'misrepresent the wishes of the local population'.
6. [15] Differences: In Source B the Saar is presented as a 'purely German district' but reference is made to its 'mixed population' in Source C.
7. [15] Explanation: The similarities reflect the fact that the main arrangements for the Saar were set out in the Treaty of Versailles, including the 15-year period of government by League of Nations, the plebiscite at the end of this period and the French ownership of the mines. However, the contrasting views of the French and German negotiators about these arrangements show the tensions between France and Germany over the Saar.
8. [15] Explanation: The French wanted reparations in 1919. One of their demands was for the coal-rich Saar basin, which had been French in the 18th century, although almost all of the Saar's 650 000 inhabitants were German. Britain and the United States would not accept this. Wilson said to Clemenceau: 'You base your claim on what took place 104 years ago. We cannot readjust Europe on the basis of conditions that existed in such a remote period. ‘Clemenceau accused the president of being pro-German and threatened to resign rather than sign the peace treaty, while Wilson threatened to abandon the negotiations and sail back to America. A compromise was finally worked out, whereby France got ownership only of the mines and the Saar was placed under the control of a League of Nations Commission consisting of a Frenchman, a German Saarlander and three members, who must not be either French or German. It was specified that a plebiscite would be held in 1935 to decide to which country the Saar should belong.
9. [15] Accept any other valid responses.
10. [25] Indicative content: Support: Source B: There is clear support here, on various grounds. The demands of the Treaty, which include reparations, are described as 'victorious violence' towards the Germans. The idea of 'all the war expenses of its enemies' is shown to be particularly unreasonable and excessive as these expenses 'exceed many times over' the total German assets. This is also linked to the loss of territories, such as the Saar, as it means Germany is 'weakened'.
11. [25] Support: Source D: This denounces the 'financial burden' as reducing Germany to 'economic slavery'. This is also linked to German expectations of the peace treaty being betrayed.
12. [25] Challenge: Source A: The report paints a detailed picture of the devastation of France and of German responsibility for this. It concludes that, as a result, French demands are that Germany 'will pay', so the clear implication is that substantial reparations are only just.
13. [25] Challenge: Source C: Clemenceau sets out an argument that Allied demands are quite reasonable, so challenging the right of the Germans to feel anger over reparations. He claims this anger because the 'German Delegation has seriously misinterpreted' the demands, which were set out in the Armistice and are compensation for 'damage caused to Allied civilians'. The mines in the Saar are explained as an example of this.
14. [25] Evaluation: Source A is from an American observer, who had witnessed the devastation and suffering of the French people first-hand. The reports of German atrocities in Belgium had created considerable sympathy for civilians affected by invasion in American public opinion, even before the US joined the war against Germany in 1917. As a Red Cross worker, it is not surprising that Ruth Gaines is moved by the suffering of the local population, and aware of French opinion about how this should be redressed, in terms of demanding that Germany should offer compensation.
15. [25] Evaluation: Source B expresses the views that were current in Germany, and would later be exploited by the Nazis, that Versailles was a betrayal and that reparations were vindictive and unrealistic, given all the territorial losses also imposed by the Treaty. Brockdorff-Rantzau was clearly delegated to try and gain the most favourable terms possible for Germany and he put forward alternative proposals which were rejected by the Allied negotiators. He was opposed to the German government's ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, and he resigned his post as foreign minister in June 1919.
16. [25] Evaluation: Source C is a response to Source B and aims to refute the argument that reparations demands were excessive. Clemenceau was of course pushing for stringent terms; the context for this includes memories of 1871 when Germany forced France to pay compensation and took control of the province of Alsace-Lorraine. He also believes the actions of German forces as they retreated through Belgium and France in the autumn of 1918 were ‘deliberate destruction'; the destruction of factories, homes and livestock, as well as mines, is supported by Source A.
17. [25] Evaluation: Source D, in contrast, is a seemingly neutral source but much more supportive of Source B. The points made echo those of Brockdorff-Rantzau very closely. The Netherlands had been neutral in the war, and there was some suspicion of Belgian demands at Versailles, which had included territories belonging to the Netherlands to strengthen its borders, and this may have created some Dutch sympathy for Germany. Continued trade relations with Germany were also crucially important to the Dutch, so it was not in their interests to see Germany economically crippled.
18. [25] Evaluation: These polarised views demonstrate the difficulty in achieving a satisfactory outcome.
19. [25] Accept any other valid responses.