Cambridge AS & A Level History 9489/32 is the May/June 2026 Paper 3 (Interpretations Question), variant 2. It lasts 1 hour 15 minutes, is worth 40 marks and is an A Level paper. You answer one question, on the topic you studied: the origins of the First World War, the Holocaust, or the origins and development of the Cold War. Each topic gives you one extract by a historian and the same 40-mark question: what can you learn about the historian’s interpretation and approach, using the extract and your own knowledge. This guide sets out the interpretation the official mark scheme identified for each extract and how the two level grids work. The paper and its mark scheme are free on the Tutopiya Learning Portal.

For an overview of all four 9489 papers from this series, see A Level History 9489 May/June 2026 past papers: what came up and how it was marked.

9489/32 at a glance

Rubric: answer one question from one section only.

Question	Section and topic	The extract	Marks
1	A: The origins of the First World War	The authoritarian monarchies of Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany in the July Crisis of 1914	40
2	B: The Holocaust	The step from killing Jewish men to destroying whole communities in 1941	40
3	C: The origins and development of the Cold War	Truman’s inexperience in 1945, Stalin’s expansion and the Western response	40
	Total answered (one question)		40

Question-by-question walkthrough

How every question is marked

Your answer is marked twice, against two grids of six levels each, and the marks are added.

AO4, interpretation and approach (20 marks):

• Level 1 (1–4): you refer to some parts of the extract.
• Level 2 (5–8): you summarise what the extract says, but don’t treat it validly as an interpretation.
• Level 3 (9–11): you see that the extract contains interpretations, but explain only sub-messages, or argue from one part of the extract for a view the whole extract doesn’t support, or offer a different interpretation in each paragraph.
• Level 4 (12–14): you identify elements of the main interpretation but don’t explain them properly, often treating a less important message as equally or more important.
• Level 5 (15–17): a sound, accurate understanding of the interpretation and approach, engaging with its elements but not explaining it as a whole.
• Level 6 (18–20): detailed, accurate use of the extract and a complete understanding, explaining all elements of the interpretation and the historian’s approach.

AO1, own knowledge (20 marks): six levels from limited knowledge (1–4) to detailed, accurate and entirely relevant knowledge (18–20). Your knowledge should test and explain the extract, not tell the story of the topic.

The key to this paper is the two-part interpretation. For every extract, the mark scheme gives a main interpretation with two numbered elements, and says that complete understanding means discussing both. An answer that explains only one of them cannot be Level 6 for AO4.

The mark scheme also gives a glossary of schools of thought for each topic. It stresses that what counts is how well a label fits the extract and how well you support it from the extract, not the label itself.

Section A: The origins of the First World War

Question 1 (40 marks)

The extract: the historian describes the constitutions of Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany, in which the monarch kept the power to declare war and chose ministers who answered to him alone. Legislatures could control finance but found it hard to vote against military budgets in a crisis. The three monarchs felt their time was running out; the extract cites the Kaiser’s first speech to the Prussian army in 1888. It argues that the decisions of July and August 1914 lay with these small governing circles, that few would challenge the monarch, and that this produced both overconfidence and erratic changes of mind, seen at their worst in Kaiser Wilhelm. Finally, it says the three courts shared a belief that a show of national power was essential and were willing to pay enormous costs for it.

Main interpretation in the mark scheme: the historian blames the three authoritarian monarchs in the July Crisis, (i) because they felt vulnerable and (ii) because they believed a show of national strength was vital.

• Approach: the nature of the three monarchies made war more likely. Policies reflected the monarchs’ personalities and beliefs, and constraints on them were limited. Rather than blaming one person or one nation, the historian sees the institution of monarchy as dangerous when elected bodies cannot restrain it.
• Schools of thought in the glossary: early post-war views blaming Germany, a revisionist reaction spreading the blame, Fischer’s work of the early 1960s returning the blame to Germany (anti-revisionism), and a wide variety of later approaches based on culture, individuals and contingency, with most historians still placing a significant share of responsibility on Germany.
• Own knowledge that fits: the constitutional position of each monarch, the role of the Kaiser and his ministers, and the decisions of the July Crisis in Vienna, St Petersburg and Berlin, used to test what the extract claims.

Section B: The Holocaust

Question 2 (40 marks)

The extract: it opens by noting that recent interpretations explain the jump from killing Jewish men to destroying entire communities as the result of a decision Hitler apparently took in July 1941. The historian then sets out their own view of how the killing developed, summarised by the mark scheme below.

Main interpretation in the mark scheme: the historian blames (i) the Nazi leadership, which constantly pushed for more radical solutions to the “Jewish problem”, while (ii) subordinates on the ground were left to work out how a state policy of genocide would be carried out.

• Approach: there may have been no explicit “Hitler Order”, but by summer 1941 Nazi leaders saw mass murder of the Jews as state policy. The increase in killing came from subordinates adapting central policy to local conditions.
• How labels were levelled: the mark scheme expected the extract’s reference to “No Hitler, no Holocaust” to lead many candidates to an intentionalist reading, which was acceptable in Levels 5 and 6. Functionalism was Level 3 at best, because the extract does not argue that the killing was an unplanned reaction to circumstances. Structuralism also did not fit, because the state is shown as centrally directed rather than radicalised by its own chaos. A synthesis argument was likely Level 4 if intentionalism was properly explained.
• Glossary terms: intentionalism (a plan to exterminate the Jews from the start), structuralism (competition within the chaotic Nazi state produced genocide), functionalism (an ad hoc response to wartime conquest of areas with large Jewish populations) and synthesis (features of more than one).

Section C: The origins and development of the Cold War

Question 3 (40 marks)

The extract: it opens with Truman becoming president in April 1945 with no experience of foreign affairs and, as an outsider to Roosevelt’s inner circle, poorly informed about US foreign policy. It ends with the Soviets tightening their grip as tensions grew, so as not to lose what the war had cost them so much to gain.

Main interpretation in the mark scheme: the historian blames both the USSR and the USA, because (i) Stalin expanded into Europe for his own security and (ii) the USA reacted too slowly to that expansion.

• Approach: neither side is cleared. Both wanted peace in 1945, but on their own terms. Stalin’s expansion was bound to alarm the West; the West’s failure to act effectively encouraged him to tighten his grip, until it came to see his actions as a threat to its own security and developed containment.
• How labels were levelled: post-revisionism was the only label allowed into Levels 5 and 6. Because more blame falls on Stalin, a traditional (orthodox) or post-post-revisionist reading was Level 4. A revisionist reading missed too much and was Level 3.
• Glossary terms: orthodox (blames the USSR and Stalin’s expansion), revisionist (shifts blame to the USA, often through its economic aims in Europe), post-revisionist (blame on both sides) and post-post-revisionist (prime responsibility to Stalin after the Soviet archives opened, often stressing ideology).

Where the marks are on 9489/32

Assessment objective	What it rewards	Marks
AO4	Analysing the historian’s interpretation and approach	20
AO1	Relevant, accurate own knowledge used with the extract	20
Total		40

• Half the marks are for reading the extract as an interpretation. Summarising what it says is only Level 2 for AO4, however accurate.
• Both parts of the interpretation matter. In all three extracts, the mark scheme’s main interpretation has two elements, and Level 6 needs both explained.
• Labels can cap you. In the Holocaust and Cold War questions, the wrong school of thought held answers at Level 3 or 4.
• Use the whole extract. Building an argument from one paragraph that the rest of the extract doesn’t support is a Level 3 feature.

How to self-mark 9489/32 with the mark scheme

1. Write the mark scheme’s main interpretation next to your opening. Does your answer state the same idea, including both numbered parts?
2. Mark AO4 first. If you only summarised, you are in Level 2. If you explained sub-messages, Level 3. If you found the main interpretation but gave a side issue equal weight, Level 4. One part of the interpretation explained well is around Level 5; both parts, with the historian’s approach, reach Level 6.
3. Check any label you used against the mark scheme’s guidance for your topic. If it is one the mark scheme caps, move your AO4 mark down to that level.
4. Mark AO1 separately. Highlight each piece of your own knowledge and ask whether it tests or explains the extract. Narrative that doesn’t link to the interpretation adds little.
5. Add the two marks for a total out of 40, and note which grid is holding you back.

Sit 9489/32 as a timed mock

You have 75 minutes for one 40-mark answer, so give yourself real time to read before you write.

Block	Marks	Time
Read the extract twice; mark the main argument and supporting points	–	12 minutes
Write the two-part interpretation in one or two sentences; plan the approach and knowledge to use	–	8 minutes
Write the answer, opening with the interpretation	40	50 minutes
Check that both parts are explained and any label is supported from the extract	–	5 minutes

Open your answer with the interpretation, then use each paragraph to show how a part of the extract supports it and how your own knowledge tests it.

Other May/June 2026 9489 papers

• 9489 Paper 12 (Document Question)
• 9489 Paper 22 (Outline Study)
• 9489 Paper 42 (Depth Study)

Practise and download

• Download 9489/32 and its mark scheme on the Learning Portal →
• All 9489 May/June 2026 papers: overview and marking patterns
• Try a free A Level History quiz

Need help with a 9489 topic? Book a free trial lesson with an A Level History tutor →

Frequently asked questions

How many questions do you answer on 9489 Paper 32 May/June 2026? +

One. There is one question for each topic: Section A the origins of the First World War, Section B the Holocaust and Section C the origins and development of the Cold War. You answer the one on the topic you studied. It is worth 40 marks and the paper lasts 1 hour 15 minutes.

How is 9489/32 marked? +

Your answer gets two marks out of 20. One is for AO4, how well you analyse the historian's interpretation and approach, on six levels. The other is for AO1, the accuracy and relevance of your own knowledge, also on six levels. The two are added to give a mark out of 40.

What was the main interpretation in the 9489/32 First World War extract? +

The mark scheme says the historian blames the three authoritarian monarchs of Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany in the July Crisis, first because they felt vulnerable and second because they believed a show of national strength was vital. A complete answer discusses both parts.

Which label did the mark scheme accept for the 2026 Cold War extract? +

Post-revisionism was the only label allowed into Levels 5 and 6, because the historian blames both sides. Calling it orthodox or post-post-revisionist was Level 4, and calling it revisionist was Level 3.

Was the 9489/32 Holocaust extract intentionalist or functionalist? +

The mark scheme accepted an intentionalist reading in Levels 5 and 6. A functionalist reading was Level 3 at best, structuralism did not fit, and a synthesis argument was likely Level 4 if intentionalism was properly explained.

Where can I download 9489/32 May/June 2026 and its mark scheme? +

Both are free to download and print on the Tutopiya Learning Portal, on the Cambridge AS & A Level History 9489 past papers page.

Ready to Excel in Your Studies?

Get personalised help from Tutopiya's expert tutors. Whether it's IGCSE, IB, A-Levels, or any other curriculum — we match you with the perfect tutor and your first session is free.

Book Your Free Trial