Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2014 Oct/Nov Paper 1 · Variant 1

This document consists of 7 printed pages and 1 blank page. DC (SJF/SW) 84679/4 © UCLES 2014 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level * 8 9 1 6 4 0 2 3 9 8 * HISTORY 9389/11 Paper 1 Document Question October/November 2014 1 hour Additional Materials: Answer Booklet/Paper READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST If you have been given an Answer Booklet, follow the instructions on the front cover of the Booklet. Write your Centre number, candidate number and name on all the work you hand in. Write in dark blue or black pen. You may use an HB pencil for any diagrams or graphs. Do not use staples, paper clips, glue or correction fluid. DO NOT WRITE IN ANY BARCODES. This paper contains three sections: Section A: European Option Section B: American Option Section C: International Option Answer both parts of the question from one section only. At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together. The marks are given in brackets [ ] at the end of each part question.

2 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 The Liberals in Prussia 1 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A The Liberals swear war to the death against the King and his standing army. They will use any means to reach that goal. They believe with deep conviction in the shortening of the period of military service so that firm and well-disciplined military training shall not be given to soldiers. I expect loyalty and self-sacrifice for the King from the officers and through them from ordinary soldiers. The officer class is criticised by the Liberals in every way so no wonder the officers are angry. The Liberals call for ‘A people’s army behind Parliament’. I counter with this slogan, ‘A disciplined army behind the King’. No agreement is possible between these two views. King William I in a letter to a Liberal leader during the army budget crisis, 1862. Source B Germany does not look to Prussia’s liberalism but to its power. The other states in Germany can indulge in liberalism, but no one will expect them to undertake Prussia’s role in unifying Germany. Prussia must gather her strength in readiness for the favourable moment, which has already been missed several times. Prussia’s boundaries are not favourable to a healthy political life. The great decisions will not depend on speeches and majority verdicts – that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but on iron and blood. Bismarck’s speech about the army budget issue, 1862. Source C I am certainly not a Bismarck enthusiast but he has the ability to act. I look forward to the future with pleasure. There is something invigorating, after fifty years of peace, in a day such as the victory in battle over Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein issue. One feels as if all one’s nerves have been refreshed. And what a blessing it is in the face of the schemes of the princes and the Austrian plans for reform, because the full force of real power has made itself felt. It is time that the importance of the medium-sized and small states was kept within its real limits. They will continue to say that Prussia under Bismarck is not to be trusted. They will condemn more loudly than ever what they claim is Prussia’s greed for annexations and use it as an excuse for criticism. They will continue to say that the real Germany is outside Prussia and is menaced by Prussia. With God’s help this will not stand in the way of what has been begun. A leading Liberal, formerly a member the Frankfurt Parliament, writes about his reaction to Prussia’s victory over Denmark, 1864.

3 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 [Turn over Source D Bismarck was not a miracle worker but his mind showed him the reality of things as they were. He realised that a united Germany could only be attained if the duel with Austria was fought out to a decisive result. This had been overlooked before he came to power. His contemporaries imagined that force was not necessary and that a general expression of faith in the new Liberal ideals must of itself lead to the unification of Germany under the leadership of Prussia. Bismarck dispersed this fog of well-meaning self-deception. Every possible obstacle was put in his way. He was opposed, hated and despised. But when he had won, then they cheered him. A German historian explains the difference between Bismarck and the Liberals, published in 1930. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast Sources A and B as evidence of the differences between the Liberals and the Prussian government. [15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that the Liberals were a serious problem for Bismarck? [25]

4 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Raid on Harpers Ferry, 1859 2 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A The recent insurrectionary movement on the part of a body of desperate men at Harpers Ferry is a novelty, at least for the older states of the Union. It is yet impossible to judge accurately the real origin and objects of the outbreak or who is implicated in it beyond the misguided men who took possession of the United States arsenal. But enough has been ascertained to arouse the suspicion that it was the premature execution of a plot that had the sympathy and, in many instances, the active support by the contribution of money, of the leading Abolitionists of the North – a class whose humanity would prompt the desolation of our states by fire and sword, the kindling of civil war and even the disruption of the Union to accomplish their irrational ideas of philanthropy. From the New Orleans ‘Picayune’, 22 October 1859. Source B As respects the attempts of an insane old man and his handful of followers, it is easy to determine where responsibility really belongs. Their act is but a part of the legitimate fruit of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Another part of this paper includes a statement about the wrongs heaped on Old Brown by slave states, for whose benefit the Compromise was broken down, wrongs which entered his soul and made him what he is – a monomaniac who believes himself to be a God- appointed agent to set the enslaved free. Upon the heads of those who repealed that Compromise, and who sanctioned the lawless violence and bloodshed which grew out of it on the plains of Kansas, rests the blood of those who fell at Harpers Ferry. This chain of events makes up the blackest page of our national history. From the ‘Chicago Press and Tribune’, 20 October 1859. Source C Hot-headed abolitionists, in various disguises and various ways, in the North and in the South, are more active than ever in sowing the seeds of slave rebellion and insurrectionary conspiracies. The Harpers Ferry raid is suggestive of a dozen other abolition outbreaks of the same kind all along the Northern line of slave states at any moment without warning. And if Northern philanthropists and Puritanical preachers of the gospel are found, with the orators and organs of the Republican party, glorifying Old Brown as a saint and a martyr, is not the danger very much increased of a repetition of this bloody Harpers Ferry foray? Above all, with such interpreters of Mr Seward’s ‘irrepressible conflict’ as Old Brown, is it not abundantly manifest that this terrible abolition crusade against the South has been pushed to the last extremities of forbearance? From the ‘New York Herald’, 4 December 1859.

5 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 [Turn over Source D It has been discovered that the following is a portion of the plans of the abolitionists, matured in Kansas by Brown and others and which he attempted to carry out: 1. To make war upon the property of the slaveholders – not for its destruction but to convert it to the use of the slaves. If it cannot be thus converted, then we advise its destruction. Teach the slaves to burn their master’s buildings, to kill their cattle and horses and let crops perish. Make slavery unprofitable in this way, if it can be done in no other. 2. To make slaveholders objects of derision and contempt, by flogging them whenever they shall be guilty of flogging their slaves. 3. To risk no general insurrection until we of the North go to your assistance or you are sure of success without our aid. From Felix de Fontaine, ‘History of American Abolitionism’, 1861. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree on who or what was responsible for causing John Brown to lead the attack on Harpers Ferry? [15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that people in the North supported the raid on Harpers Ferry? [25]

6 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 Britain and the Beginnings of the League of Nations 3 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A The idea of a League of Nations is dangerous to Britain because it will create a sense of security which is wholly fictitious. It will only result in failure and the longer that failure is postponed the more certain it is that this country will have been lulled to sleep. It will put a very strong lever into the hands of the well-meaning idealists, the anti-war and disarmament people. They are to be found in almost every government and devalue expenditure on armaments. In the course of time, it will almost certainly result in this country being caught at a disadvantage in terms of its military preparations. Germany, or perhaps Russia, would secretly prepare for war. The other powers will be too frightened, too unconcerned or too self-centred even to give their opinion much less to exert any form of pressure, military or economic, on Germany. Maurice Hankey, British Cabinet Secretary, May 1916. Source B For Britain, the effective way to prevent war is to create the strongest possible combination of forces against any disturber of the peace through a system of general conferences to stimulate cooperation between nations. A conference cannot force a resolution, but it can facilitate conciliation and compromise, if only by affording time for discussion and scope for resourceful diplomacy. The more it can be made a rule that, before appealing to the sword, nations should bring their quarrels before a conference in which all are heard and none are coerced, the better will be the prospects of rival claims being peacefully adjusted: the stronger will grow the feeling that any nation embarking on war without previously pleading its cause before a League of Nations commits an offence against the community of states for which the penalty may be a general combination against the offender. Sir Eyre Crowe, British Foreign Office Minister, October 1916. Source C The success of the League of Nations depends upon the sincerity of all the signatories. If one country, whilst being a party to the League of Nations, still goes on increasing its armaments, how can this nation demonstrate its sincerity except at a risk which no statesman can possibly take? It would be idle to have waged such a great war if the only conclusion of it was that not merely did we renew the competition in armaments which created the conflict, but did it with renewed vigour and energy. I sincerely hope that the nations who subscribed to this Covenant of the League will not merely use it as a boast to be able to say, ‘See the exalted ideals to which we have attached our signatures’, but that they will demonstrate that they mean it by making all the necessary sacrifices in order to make that Covenant a reality and demonstrate that they are in earnest when they say that they mean this Covenant to put an end to the horrors of war for ever. Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, July 1919.

7 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 Source D The rabbit is saying – ‘My offensive equipment being practically nil, it remains for me to fascinate him with the power of my eye.’ Cartoon entitled ‘Moral Persuasion’, from a British magazine, 1920. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast the views expressed by Hankey (Source A) and Crowe (Source B) about the issue of whether Britain should support the proposed League of Nations. [15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that Britain joined the League of Nations despite having doubts about its prospects of success in preserving international peace. [25]

8 9389/11/O/N/14 © UCLES 2014 Copyright Acknowledgements: Section C Source D © http://vimeo.com/tag:leagueofnations. Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity. Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge. BLANK PAGE

® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations. CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2014 series 9389 HISTORY 9389/11 Paper 1 (Document Question), maximum raw mark 40 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers. Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for Teachers. Cambridge will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes. Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2014 series for most Cambridge IGCSE®, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level components.

Page 2 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 Generic levels of response Part (a) Level 4: Makes a developed comparison [12–15] Makes a developed comparison between the two sources, recognising points of similarity and difference. Uses knowledge to evaluate the sources and shows good contextual awareness. Level 3: Compares views and identifies similarities and differences [8–11] Compares the views expressed in the sources, identifying differences and similarities. Begins to explain and evaluate the views using the sources and knowledge. Level 2: Compares views and identifies similarities and /or differences [4–7] Identifies relevant similarities or differences between views/sources and the response may be one- sided with only one aspect explained. Alternatively, both similarities and differences may be mentioned but both aspects lack development. Level 1: Describes content of each source [1–3] Describes or paraphrases the content of the two sources. Very simple comparisons may be made (e.g. one is from a letter and the other is from a speech) but these are not developed. Level 0: No relevant comment on the sources or the issue [0] Part (b) Level 5: Evaluates the sources to reach a sustained judgement [21–25] Answers are well focused, demonstrating a clear understanding of the sources and the question. Reaches a sustained judgement about the extent to which the sources support the statement and weighs the evidence in order to do this. Level 4: Evaluates the sources [16–20] Demonstrates a clear understanding of the sources and the question. Begins to evaluate the material in context, considering the nature, origin and purpose of the sources in relation to the statement. At the top of this level candidates may begin to reach a judgement but this is not sustained. Level 3: Uses the sources to support and challenge the statement [11–15] Makes valid points from the source to both challenge and support the statement in the question. These comments may be derived from source content or may be about the provenance/nature of the sources. Level 2: Uses the sources to support or challenge the statement [6–10] Makes valid points from the sources to either support the statement in the question or to challenge it. These comments may be derived from source content or may be about the provenance/nature of the sources. Level 1: Does not make valid use of the sources [1–5] Describes the content of the sources with little attempt to link the material to the question. Alternatively, candidates may write an essay about the question without reference to the sources. Level 0: No relevant comment on the sources or the issue [0]

Page 3 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 The Liberals in Prussia 1 (a) Compare and contrast Sources A and B as evidence of the differences between the Liberals and the Prussian government. [15] Both sources are from the Prussian government, A from the head of state and B from the newly-appointed head of government. Both focus on the army budget crisis of 1862. The Prussian king wanted to spend more money on the army to make it more professional following a disorganised mobilisation in 1859. The Liberals in the parliament (or Landtag) wanted to maintain the traditions of citizen soldiers within the army; they wanted full-time military service to last for two years as opposed to the three wanted by the government. The Liberals kept rejecting the government budget. In September 1862 the King appointed Bismarck as his prime minister. Bismarck’s solution was to ignore the Liberals and simply continue to levy taxes, even though the Landtag had not agreed. This went on until 1866 when many Liberals agreed to the government budget following the defeat of Austria. King William, in Source A, puts the government’s case. In 1862 he had been regent and king for only four years. The Landtag was set up only in 1849. The crisis was in some ways a struggle for power between conservatism and liberalism. Source A focuses on the political struggle within Prussia. The King, though putting one side only, is ultimately correct in his assertion that ‘no agreement is possible between these two views’ – at least before 1866. Source B makes no mention of the domestic crisis – though this famous speech is made to the budget committee of the Lower House of the Landtag. Bismarck is trying to educate the deputies in the realities of power politics outside Prussia, if within Germany. Both Source A and Source B are hostile to the Liberals. While the King concentrates on a specific domestic crisis, Bismarck’s opposition is a more fundamental concern about the complete ineffectiveness of Liberals in furthering the interests of Prussia and Germany. (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that the Liberals were a serious problem for Bismarck? [25] Context: The absence of an end date in the question means that complete answers need to cover the period from 1862 to 1871. In terms of the question, these nine years divide in 1867. In the first five years, relations between Bismarck and the Liberals were awful; in the second four years, Bismarck and the larger part of a divided Liberal group in the new North German Reichstag became allies. After the revolutions of 1848–49, the Liberals became a growing political force, both in Prussia and in Germany. In 1861, Prussian liberals formed the German Progress Party (DFP) which in 1862 became the largest group in the Prussian Lower House, leading the opposition to the government’s army bill for the next four years. Bismarck was appointed in 1862 in a desperate attempt to solve the constitutional deadlock between Prussian government and Prussian Liberals. He was an out-and-out conservative with few allies in the Prussian government. He was the last resort of a king who was threatening to abdicate. Bismarck’s approach to the crisis was to confront the Liberals. His ‘blood and iron’ speech, his first public speech after taking office, caused great controversy, even within the government. He then asserted that there was a ‘gap’ in the constitution which enabled the government to raise taxes without the Landtag’s approval. This stand-off lasted for four years. Then the defeat of Austria changed the picture completely. Most, though not all, Prussian Progressives were won over by Prussia’s creation of a Kleindeutsch. Together with

Page 4 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 Liberals from other states of North Germany, they formed the National Liberal Party. Bismarck was conciliatory. He introduced an Indemnity Bill which stated that levying taxes since 1862 had been unconstitutional. The National Liberals became the largest party in the North German Reichstag. Bismarck worked with them, if on his own terms, until 1879. Analysis: The three primary sources in this question all come from the first period, the time of conflict. Two of the three portray the Liberals as a problem for Bismarck and the Prussian government. Source A, from the Prussian king, asserts that no agreement was possible between the government and the Liberals over army reforms. Source B, from Bismarck himself, not only illustrates the gulf between liberalism and the Prussian government but also widened that gulf at the time. Source C is from a Liberal. Though we do not know from which state the author comes, his disparaging comments about medium-sized and small states strongly suggest he is Prussian. The author welcomes Prussian success over Denmark, even though he is no enthusiast for Bismarck. Thus he approves the policies of Bismarck. The content of Source C suggests that by 1864 the Liberals were ceasing to be a problem for Bismarck. Source D is from a historian writing some seventy years later. Without mentioning specific events of the 1860s, the author nevertheless explains how the achievement of Kleindeutsch required war with Austria. Mere ‘expression of faith in Liberal ideals’ would not lead to German unification. The Liberals, well-meaning but self-deceiving, did all they could to oppose Bismarck – until he unified Northern Germany in 1866–67. Then most Liberals turned to cheer him. Source D shows the Liberals to be a problem for Bismarck until the defeat of Austria. Source analysis shows the Liberals to be a problem for Bismarck in 1862 but not from 1864, possibly, and from 1866, definitely. Whether they were a serious problem, even in 1862, is an issue which requires source evaluation to address. Evaluation: Addressing the question with regard to the nine years from 1862 to 1871 is impossible because of the absence of any references, even in Source D, to events after 1866. However, candidates could use their contextual knowledge to show how limited the sources are in addressing the question in its full form. The sources do help answer the question with regard to the time of conflict between Bismarck and the [Prussian] Liberals between 1862 and 1866. Sources B and D complement each other. Source D can be seen as a slightly expanded paraphrase of Bismarck’s best-known argument, as found in Source B. That a German historian writing in the latter years of the Weimar Republic should take this position could be seen as surprising. A Weimar historian might be expected to be more sympathetic to Liberalism. Writing in the 1920s, soon after the First World War, he might be expected to be more critical of ‘blood and iron’. Even if a surprise, Source D does support Source B. Bismarck’s speech, a deliberate provoking of the Landtag Liberals, itself suggests that the Liberals did not pose a serious threat to him, once the context of the speech is taken into account. When making the speech, Bismarck was new in office with few supporters. He was vulnerable. In such a situation, he could risk antagonising the Liberals only because they were not a serious problem. Source C confirms the judgement of Sources B and C. It shows how easily the Liberals were won over by a Prussian military victory over a minor European power. This victory was not a victory for nationalism because Bismarck sidelined the nationalist candidate, which makes the Liberals’ abandonment of their principles more shocking. A group so easily swayed could be no serious threat. Source A remains as the one source which does argue that the Liberals were a serious threat. However, the King writing a letter – presumably private – in 1862 was bound to argue thus. The Progressive Liberals in the Landtag were causing constitutional deadlock. William I was unused to an assertive parliament. He exaggerated the crisis, as shown by the other three sources, even after evaluation. The Liberals were never a serious threat to Bismarck.

Page 5 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Raid on Harpers Ferry, 1859 2 (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree on who or what was responsible for causing John Brown to lead the attack on Harpers Ferry? [15] Both sources are critical of the actual attack on Harpers Ferry. Source A calls the raiders ‘desperate’ and ‘misguided’ while Source B describes John Brown as ‘insane’. Though it does not mention John Brown by name, Source A does focus on the issue of who was responsible for causing the attack. It lays the blame for the raid on ‘the leading Abolitionists of the North’ who, it says, provided sympathy and financial support for the plan. In other words, Brown is something of a puppet. Source B, by contrast, does mention John Brown. Even if it sees him as insane and a ‘monomaniac’, Source B is more sympathetic towards Brown. It sees him as driven mad by ‘the chain of events’ leading from the repeal of the Missouri Compromise – which was overturned by the 1850 Compromise – to ‘Bloody Kansas’ in the mid-1850s. By breaking the Missouri Compromise and by sanctioning the later violence in Kansas, the slave states caused John Brown to feel such a sense of injustice that he felt it necessary to lead the attack on Harpers Ferry as the first step in the process of restoring justice. Thus Source A blames Northern abolitionists while Source B blames the South, a clear contrast. (b) How far do Sources A to D support the assertion that people in the North supported the raid on Harpers Ferry? [25] Context: The raid on the US armoury at Harpers Ferry in late 1859 was a very dramatic incident which did much to upset the already delicate balance between North and South. John Brown, 59 in 1859, had been a well-connected Northern farmer and businessman who, in the 1850s, dedicated himself to the abolitionist cause. He had become involved in ‘Bloody Kansas’, the sack of the town of Lawrence in 1856, causing him to kill people in what became known as the Pottawatomie massacre, which in turn led to a conflict at Ossawatomie in which his son was killed. He spent the next two years travelling the North trying to find men, money and materiel to start military action against slavery. He hoped that seizing the armoury at Harpers Ferry would spark slave revolts across the South. The raid was botched. That it happened at all, however, alarmed many in the South, especially those who feared slave rebellions. The rapid execution by the Virginian government of the raid’s leader, John Brown, did much to anger the North. Many abolitionists saw him as a martyr to a noble cause. Others thought him insane to undertake a raid which was bound to fail. Analysis: Two sources clearly support the assertion: A and D. Source A argues that Northern abolitionists provided support, both in words and in money. Source D provides extracts from a plan drawn up by abolitionists to undermine slavery by means of a series of illegal actions, including incendiarism. Both maintain that abolitionists in the North were plotting against slavery. One source – Source C – is less clear-cut. It argues that ‘hot-headed abolitionists … in the North’ are active in encouraging slave conspiracies and ‘Northern philanthropists …are glorifying Old Brown’. This is not quite the same as supporting the Harper Ferry raid, however. Source B does not support the assertion. It explains the raid as being a reaction against the policies of the Southern states to tilt the balance based on the Missouri Compromise of 1820 in their favour. On the question of Northern support for the raid, however, it is silent. Thus content analysis would suggest some strong support for the assertion and only limited support against.

Page 6 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 Evaluation: Source A is from a Southern newspaper and thus its argument that the North did support the raid is to be expected. Source D provides support for these arguments, though little trust can be placed on Source D, as is shown later. Contextual knowledge does confirm that Brown did have some support from some Northern abolitionists, even to the extent of funding the raid. Admittedly, only a small group did so but it did include on its outer fringes Frederick Douglass, the ex-slave and leading abolitionist. In addition, many more Northerners did sympathise with Brown’s efforts. Source B is a Northern source, which focuses on explaining why the raid occurred. Though it blames the slave states of the South for bringing about a ‘chain of events’ which provoked John Brown into organising the raid on Harpers Ferry, it is silent on the matter of support for the raid. However, if the South is to blame for Harper’s Ferry, by implication Northerners are not. Source C, a second Northern source, was written two days after the execution of John Brown. It indicates Northern support for Brown ‘as a saint and a martyr’ but makes no mention of the raid on Harpers Ferry. The way in which Brown faced his trial and execution aroused a great deal of sympathy in the North. The source shows great support for John Brown after the raid but none for the raid itself. Source D is a rather strange source. Published at the start of the civil war two years later, it claims to be part of John Brown’s plans at the time of the raid on Harpers Ferry. It talks of ‘John Brown and others’, arguing that the author did see Northerners as supporting the raid. The content of the source is confusing. According to Point 3, the author – presumably John Brown – is addressing slaves in the South. However, Point 1 talks of slaves in the third person. In addition, Point 1 is very muddled indeed. How can you convert the property of slaveholders to the benefit of slaves by burning buildings, killing cattle and leaving crops to waste? The author is a Southern supporter writing an anti-abolitionist history, presumably to try and sway public opinion as uncivil peace turns to civil war. And though John Brown’s exact plans varied week by week, meeting by meeting, his main aim was not to persecute slaveholders, as Source D suggests. Thus Source D is most unreliable. Thus on evaluation, the sources do support the assertion, even though only a very small minority of Northerners actually supported the raid before it occurred.

Page 7 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 Britain and the Beginnings of the League of Nations 3 (a) Compare and contrast the views expressed by Hankey (Source A) and Crowe (Source B) about the issue of whether Britain should support the proposed League of Nations. [15] Hankey (Source A) is heavily against Britain becoming involved in the proposed League of Nations. He argues that: • membership of the League would give Britain ‘a sense of security which is wholly fictitious’ • feeling protected by the League, Britain would be likely to reduce expenditure and commitment to ensuring its own military preparations • the League is bound to fail sooner or later, leaving Britain militarily weak, unprepared and unable to defend itself • there was a danger that other countries, such as Germany and Russia, would continue to develop their own armed forces, which would pose a major risk to a militarily weak and unprepared Britain • other countries would be unlikely to support the League, leaving Britain unprotected against aggressor states such as Germany. Crowe (Source B) is more supportive of the idea of a League of Nations, believing that it offers Britain the best opportunity of avoiding future wars. The League would be able to: • allow countries to settle their disputes through ‘conciliation and compromise’ • enable disputes to be settled peacefully by allowing time for discussion and ‘resourceful diplomacy’ • enable any country which threatens international peace to be confronted by ‘a general combination’ of other countries. Both sources come from 1916, a time when Britain was still heavily involved in the Great War against Germany. There was general concern that such a war must be avoided in future, and this concern had led to proposals from many quarters for some form of international organisation to make future wars impossible. Crowe accepts that ‘a conference cannot force a resolution’, but argues that an organisation such as the proposed League of Nations offers Britain the best chance of avoiding involvement in war in the future. Hankey is, perhaps, less idealistic and his views make a remarkably accurate prediction of the weaknesses which were subsequently to afflict the League. (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that Britain joined the League of Nations despite having doubts about its prospects of success in preserving international peace? [25] Context: The horrors of WWI led diplomats and intellectuals in many countries to argue that there was a need for some form of international organisation which could prevent any future repetition. The old Concert of Europe and balance of power concepts had clearly failed to prevent war. Various proposals were put forward throughout the war, and US President Wilson was adamant that the League of Nations should be written into all of the post-war treaties which emerged from the Paris peace negotiations. Many diplomats, including Lloyd George, were rather less convinced than Wilson about the prospects of such a League being

Page 8 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2014 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2014 successful. Ironically, this included diplomats in the USA. However, public opinion in Britain and other European countries demanded that action be taken to ensure that there could never be a repeat of WWI. As Hankey (Source A), Lloyd George (Source C) and the cartoonist (Source D) imply, there were fundamental weaknesses in the League. By encouraging member states to disarm, the League itself would become militarily weak since it relied totally on armed forces provided by member states in order to enforce its decisions through collective security. Analysis: Main support for the hypothesis comes from Source A, in which Hankey argues that the League is bound to fail leaving Britain at a major disadvantage, being militarily weak and unprepared to protect itself against aggressive nations such as Germany or Russia. Lloyd George (Source C) clearly has some doubts about the League’s prospects of success, stressing that it could only succeed if all member states fully honoured their commitments to the Covenant. In particular, he argues that it was essential to avoid a repeat of the military escalation between states which had led to WWI. He appreciates, however, that this would depend on genuine trust between nations and makes it clear that he could not allow Britain to fall behind other countries in terms of its military preparations. Source D is concerned that the League will have insufficient power to deal with major international disputes. With no armed forces of its own, the League would have to depend on ‘moral persuasion’ to force compliance from aggressor states. In challenging the hypothesis, Crow (Source B) argues that the League would be ‘the effective way to prevent war’, and that its decisions would be upheld by ‘a general combination’ against any nation which failed to accept them. The League, he suggests, would provide a fair and unbiased platform for the settlement of disputes without recourse to war. Lloyd George (Source C) expresses hope that other countries will share Britain’s commitment to the League and, if they do, the League would be able to succeed. Despite the League’s potential weaknesses, the cartoon (Source D) depicts it as unflinching in the face of ‘international strife’. Evaluation: Source A was written in May 1916, at a time when the war against Germany was at its height. Hankey argues that the proposed League is both naïve and idealistic, suggesting that other countries will simply ignore it – either because of their own aggressive plans or because of their own weakness/disinterest/national interests. Hankey clearly sees Germany as a potential threat to world peace when the Great War is over. It is interesting that he also sees Russia as a potential threat to future peace – this was before the Russian revolution and at a time when Russia was a war-time ally of Britain. Hankey’s views are reflected in both Source C (which has doubts about the commitment of other countries to the League) and Source D (which sees the League as weak and unable to defend itself). Source B was written at a similar time to Source A. With British public opinion horrified and tired of the Great War, there was general hope that some means could be found to avoid a repetition of such horrors in the future. Written by a British Foreign Office Minister, it reflects the developing interest of the British government in establishing some form of League of Nations at the end of WWI. In Source C, the British Prime Minister is speaking shortly after the establishment of the League of Nations in Part 1 of the Treaty of Versailles. The source therefore contains the views of the man who actually agreed to Britain’s entry of the League by signing the Covenant. While hopeful that the League will succeed, he clearly shares some of the concerns raised by Hankey (Source A) and is realistic rather than naïve in his views. Source D is the cartoon based on the opinions of the artist and the newspaper in which it was published, but is also likely to reflect (and even to have helped shape) public opinion in Britain. Published in the year following the establishment of the League of Nations, it reflects some of the views expressed in both Sources A and C.