Paper 1 source skills (Conflict and intervention)

Paper 1 is a source exam, not an essay: Paper 1 checks how well you read, use, and judge sources — not how much history you can recall. You get four sources on one case study and answer four set questions.

Here is the best news about Paper 1. The question types never change: every exam asks the same four things, in the same order, worth the same marks.

So you can drill a fixed method for each one long before you ever see the sources.

Your own knowledge of the case study still matters, but only the last 9-mark question rewards it directly. The first three questions are won or lost purely on how you handle the provenance and content of the sources in front of you.

For this unit, the sources come from Conflict and intervention — two case studies of outsiders getting drawn into someone else's crisis.

The first is the Rwandan genocide and intervention (1990–1998): a civil war, a peace deal, and then around 800,000 people killed in 100 days while the world held back.

The second is the Kosovo conflict and NATO intervention (1989–2002): Serbia strips Kosovo's self-rule, war follows, and NATO bombs Serbia for 78 days NATO.

Whichever case study you get, the same source skills carry you. You read each source, judge it as evidence, and — only at the end — bring in facts of your own.

Each question is unlocked by its command word — the verb that tells you exactly what to do. Learn what each one is asking, and the method that earns the marks follows.

Turning a fact into Q4 evidence: Suppose Q4 asks whether the world's inaction let the Rwandan genocide grow so large. A source might quote General Dallaire's warning that weapons were being stockpiled. Your own knowledge then adds what the source leaves out: the UN cut UNAMIR after Belgian peacekeepers were killed, and the great powers avoided the word 'genocide' to dodge a duty to act. Source detail plus wider context is exactly what the top band rewards.

How this is tested: Q2 always uses OPVL. The big trap is to describe the source instead of judging it as evidence. A second trap is treating bias as if it makes a source useless — bias is itself a value, because it shows what people wanted believed.

Common mistakes: 1. Describing the source instead of judging it. 2. Treating bias as useless — bias limits facts but is valuable for attitudes. 3. Forgetting to link back to the named topic. 4. Giving only a value or only a limitation — Q2 needs both. 5. Inventing provenance — use only what the attribution line states.