You will be given up to five documents varying between five and 15 lines each, although one may well be a cartoon or picture. The total mark for the whole paper is usually 30 and the marks for each question progress from three to 12.

How you can achieve a good grade

1. The first requirement is to know your subject. If you are studying the unification of Germany, for example, make sure that you have revised the syllabus thoroughly, as the documents set you in the exam will cover some key aspect of the course. Without having a good background knowledge, you will not be able to interpret the documents effectively.

2. Read through the documents in the exam paper carefully. They usually contain several different points. Note the mark allocation, as it indicates how much you should write. Each question also tells you which document(s) it is asking you to analyse. Only bring in information from the other documents if it is relevant, or tests the reliability of the document you are evaluating. If you are asked to use your own knowledge as well, you are expected to use relevant background information from your course.

1. Accurate comprehension. This is the basis of all interpretative skills. You need to understand what the sources are saying. Are they a factual account, propaganda or satire?

2. Evaluation. This means making an assessment of the evidence in a document. Ask yourself what the particular document you are studying actually shows and how reliable is it as a source. For instance, where does it come from and what is its date? Use your background knowledge and, if relevant, the other documents, to check its reliability and utility - that is, what use is it to you in solving the question you are asked? A satirical cartoon may be helpful in shedding light on why a particular policy is unpopular. Similarly, a government propaganda document can indicate what a government wants to hide. In evaluating a cartoon or picture, ask yourself what is the overall message the artist wants to communicate.

Then go on to see what it tells you about the events and people portrayed.

These documents cover a long period from 1857 to 1870 and relate to the period of German unification, which was finally achieved by Bismarck.

Source 1. An extract from an article dated 11 July 1857 in a leading North German Liberal newspaper, which supported national unification.

Whoever looks at the situation without prejudice and fear will recognise immediately the intimate connection, especially in Germany, of the national economic with the national political problem, this Alpha and Omega [A to Z] of German politics. The commerce and transportation of a country have, in spite of the egoism among individuals, a common aspect. They demand one law, one legislation, one defence abroad. This need has been satisfied in all other countries, which we may mention. A common code of commercial law is now slowly struggling to life: a common legislation is a pious wish, and abroad we all enjoy the same right, defencelessness. …

Source 2. In June 1862 Bismarck informed the Saxon envoy [ambassador] to the British Government that he had said the following to Disraeli at a dinner party the previous evening.

I shall soon … be compelled to undertake the conduct of the Prussian Government. My first care will be to reorganise the army, with or without the help of the Landtag [the Prussian Parliament]. … As soon as the army shall have been brought into such a condition as to inspire respect, 1 shall seize the first best pretext to declare war against Austria, dissolve the German diet, subdue the minor states, and give national unity to Germany under Prussian leadership. …

Disraeli’s commentary … was, ‘Take care of that man! he means what he says. …’

Source 3. In a letter to the Prussian Ambassador in Paris, February 1865, Bismarck revealed that he wished to continue to work closely with Austria and for the time being delay ‘the divorce’.

I think it more useful to continue for a while the present marriage despite small domestic quarrels, and if a divorce becomes necessary, to take the prospects as they then prevail rather than to cut the bond now, with all the disadvantages of obvious perfidy [ill faith], and without now having the certainty of finding better conditions in a new relationship later.

Source 4. A South German cartoon from the autumn of 1866 with the title ‘Germany’s Future’. Underneath is the caption: ‘Does it go under one hat? I believe, rather, it goes under a spiked helmet’.

Source 5. Bismarck’s draft of the Ems Telegram.

Berlin, 13 July 1870 For Open Publication

After the news of the renunciation of the hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern had been officially communicated to the Imperial government of France by the Royal government of Spain, the French Ambassador further demanded of his majesty, the King at Ems, that he would authorise him to telegraph to Paris that his Majesty, the King, bound himself for all time never again to give his consent, should the Hohenzollerns renew their candidature. His Majesty, the King, thereupon decided not to receive the French Ambassador, and sent the aide-de-camp [officer acting as his assistant] on duty to tell him that his Majesty had nothing further to communicate to the ambassador.

1. Study Source 2. What does Bismarck mean by ‘My first care will be to reorganise the army’ (lines 2-3)? (2 marks)

This question tests your comprehension of the document and knowledge of the factual background to the events that led to Bismarck coming to power. To achieve the top-level mark you need to refer briefly to the mounting crisis between the Liberals and the Crown over passing the Army bill. This had resulted in the King dissolving the Prussian parliament in March 1862. By June it was becoming clear that the King would have to look to Bismarck to form a government which would force through the necessary legislation for modernising the Army.

2. Study Source 1. Use your own knowledge to explain why this newspaper thinks that there is ‘an intimate connection’ in Germany between ‘the national economic’ and the national political problem. (4 marks)

The task here is to explain a key issue while using one source as a stimulus. The issue, which this document is concerned with, is the economic need for political unity. To achieve the top level of marks you must show why most businessmen in the German states supported the Customs Union and wished it to develop further into a political union. You need to stress how a united Germany would be able to provide business and industry with greater backup services, a united legal system, a single currency, etc.

3. Study Sources 1 and 4. Does a study of these sources offer support for the view that Prussia conquered rather than united Germany? (6 marks)

This question tests your skill to evaluate the light shed on a key historical issue by two very different sources. You must give a balanced answer, which looks at both sources. Document 1, which you have already studied, reflects the demands of the North German business lobby, while the cartoon indicates that not all Germans were longing for unity. To reach the top level (5-6 marks) you will need to point out that the great majority of the smaller German states, despite being members of the Customs Union, actually fought against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. The cartoon is commenting on Prussia’s annexation of Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau and the City of Frankfurt in September 1866. It is important to mention, too, how opinion in the south German states hardened against unity after 1867.

4. Study Sources 2 and 3. Assess the value of these sources to an historian studying the causes of the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. (6 marks)

The examiner is testing you here on the evaluation and reliability of two somewhat contradictory sources. To gain a top-level mark (5-6) you must give a balanced answer, which looks at both sources. In Source 1 Bismarck is indicating that he has a definite programme for defeating Austria and seizing the leadership of Germany, yet in Source 3 he is much more cautious and is apparently not thinking about an immediate break with Austria. You need to explain in Source 1 how Bismarck was not yet in power and that what he told Disraeli in June 1862 was perhaps overoptimistic. The second document comes after two years of experience and the war with Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, in which Prussia and Austria were allies. By this time Bismarck was not at all sure how he could proceed against Austria. In the summer of 1865 he both prepared for war and kept the door open to a settlement with Vienna, which led him to signing the Gastein agreement in July. The two documents here reflect different stages in Bismarck’s career and, consequently, different assessments of the Austrian problem.

5. To what extent do these sources and any other evidence known to you explain why the unificationof Germany also involved war with France in 1870? (12 marks)

This question in effect calls for an essay answer. Make sure that you have left sufficient time to answer it (20 minutes at least). You will need to think carefully how to plan your answer and what background knowledge you will use. To reach the highest mark level (10-12) you will need to develop a sustained and integrated argument based on analysis of the sources and your own knowledge in which you show that you understand the events and their implications for France of the years 1862-70. The question is made more difficult by the fact that only the final document deals directly with France. Remember that ‘to what extent’ is in fact asking you to make a judgement based on these documents and your own knowledge. The key to answering this is to stress that a united Germany in central Europe would inevitably challenge Napoleon’s efforts to make France the leading European power, which were greatly helped by the fact that Germany was a ‘geographical expression’ until 1866-71. The potential for German power is hinted at in Source 1, while in Source 2, lines 4-9, Bismarck clearly unveils his programme to give ‘national unity … under Prussian leadership’. Yet Source 3 shows that Bismarck could be pragmatic and flexible. Why then was war not avoided with France? Here you will need to draw on your own knowledge to develop the argument further. Napoleon’s price for the toleration of a Prussian-led Germany was the cession to France of the whole left bank of the Rhine up to Mainz. When this was refused, and when, in the spring of 1867, Bismarck also had second thoughts about the French purchase of Luxemburg, Napoleon became an implacable enemy of any attempts to complete German unity. This created a dilemma for Bismarck: the South Germans, as Source 4 indicates, were becoming increasingly opposed to a union with Prussia, yet he feared the power vacuum that their continued independence might create and the growing opportunities for French influence there. He therefore came to the conclusion that only a war, or at least a major crisis with France, would create the right nationalist atmosphere in which German unity could be completed. To provoke this he persuaded King William to back the Hohenzollern candidature to the Spanish throne, which had been made vacant by Queen Isabella’s abdication. He gambled correctly that Paris would see this as an attempt to draw Spain into an anti-French alliance, but his policy seemed to have failed when the news of the candidature leaked out prematurely and the resulting uproar persuaded King William to abandon the plan. Source 5 shows how quickly Bismarck could exploit a chance. When Bismarck received the account from King William in Ems of how he had refused to give the French foreign minister a formal guarantee against a renewed Prussian candidature (even though there were, in fact, no plans afoot for this), he skilfully edited the telegram and had it printed in the papers so that it would enflame French public opinion. This provoked a French declaration of war on Prussia and provided the context for completing German unity.

The documents come from W.N. Medlicott and D.K. Coveney, Bismarck and Europe, Arnold, 1971, p 30 and 72 (2 and 5); D.G. Williamson, Bismarck and Germany, 1862-1890, Longman, (2nd edn, 1998, pp 92-3 and 100 (1 and 3); Questions on German History, German Bundestag Press and Information Centre, Bonn, 1984, p 193 (4).