Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2015 May/June Paper 1 · Variant 2

This document consists of 7 printed pages and 1 blank page. DC (LEG/SW) 92187/3 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over * 4 2 2 9 7 2 7 5 5 4 * HISTORY 9389/12 Paper 1 Document Question May/June 2015 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. 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. Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level

2 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 Problems facing Italian nationalism 1 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples are now subject once more to a Bourbon sovereign. Piedmont has recovered its old dynasty and has annexed Genoa, but strong as this state now is on the side which faces France, it is exposed where it confronts the Austrian possessions. It occupies only a limited area with a small population and limited military forces. Austria now possesses the richest and most fertile regions of the peninsula and can threaten the Kingdom of Piedmont on its flank. The Pope has been given back his lands and as a result two and a half million Italians have been plunged into insignificance. The King of Naples is now relegated to the end of the peninsula and cannot contribute to the defence of Italy. There will always be blood to be shed until Italy is left alone with all foreigners excluded and the Papacy reduced in temporal power. The solution to all Italy’s problems lies in the establishment of a strong state in the north of Italy. Memorandum to Tsar Alexander of Russia by the Piedmontese Ambassador to Russia, March 1818. Source B Consider the six focal centres of activity which control the destiny of the 18 million inhabitants of Italy: Turin, Milan, Modena, Florence, Rome and Naples. Each city detests its neighbours and is detested in return. The rulers have no difficulty in achieving their aim of divide and rule. Modena and Turin are run by the Catholic Church. Piedmont is the most monarchical country in Europe. The rulers of Austria are backward in their approach and treat Italy as a colony to exploit. The ruler of Bologna is a Catholic Cardinal – an ignorant blessed only by a sense of humour. Florence is run by a Grand Duke indifferent to ruling and who just adores money and women. In the area ruled by the Pope the only law in force is that of the Catholic Church and they administer that with a savage repression. The Kingdom of Naples has an absurd monarchy which only manages to preserve a tiny fragment of administration which is a legacy of the good French government. From the journal of a French writer, 1817. Source C Young Italy is the brotherhood of Italians who believe in a law of progress and duty. They are convinced that Italy is called to be a nation and that the failure of past attempts at unification is due not to weakness but to the poor leadership of the revolutionary parties. Young Italy stands for the republic and unity, a republic because Italy really has no basis for a monarchy, because the Italian tradition is wholly republican. If monarchy was to be the aim of the Italian revolution, all the problems of a monarchical system would be brought with it, such as concessions to foreign courts and repression of the masses. This would unquestionably destroy the revolution. The means of fulfilling the aims of Young Italy are education and insurrection. Mazzini writing in 1831.

3 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Source D The settlement imposed on Italy by the Congress of Vienna was harsh and defective. It was based on no principle, nor national interest, nor popular wishes. The uprisings of 1820 and 1821 against it were easily suppressed because the upper classes were divided and the masses took only a feeble part. The result was to make all governments in Italy hostile to any idea of nationality. Attempts to change after 1830 were easily suppressed, for these movements, relying solely on republican ideas and irrational passions, were sterile. A democratic revolution has no chance of success in Italy as active power resides almost entirely with the middle and upper classes and both are deeply conservative. Cavour writing in 1846. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree about the principal problems facing those who wished for a united Italy? [15] (b) ‘The main obstacle to Italian unification was Austria.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25]

4 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Caning of Senator Sumner in 1856 2 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A A cartoon from 1856. Source B No meaner exhibition of Southern cowardice – generally miscalled Southern chivalry – was ever witnessed. It is not in the least a cause for wonder that a member of the House of Representatives should attack a member of the Senate because the last had uttered words which the first chose to consider distasteful. The reasons for the absence of collision between North and South, which existed a few years back, have ceased. As the South has taken the position that Slavery ought to exist, irrespective of colour, that democracy is a delusion and a lie, we must expect that Northern men in Washington, whether members or not, will be assaulted, wounded or killed so long as the North will bear it. The acts of violence during this session – including one murder – are simply overtures to the drama of which the persecutions, murders, robberies and war upon the free-state men of Kansas constitute the first act. We are either to have Liberty or Slavery. From the ‘New York Tribune’, 23 May 1856.

5 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Source C Immediately upon the reception of the news on Saturday last, a most enthusiastic meeting was convened in the town of Newberry. The meeting voted the Hon. Preston S. Brooks a handsome gold- headed cane, which we saw yesterday on the way to Washington. We heard one of Carolina’s truest and most honoured matrons send a message to him saying that ‘the ladies of the South would send him hickory sticks with which to chastise Abolitionists and Red Republicans whenever he wanted them.’ And, to add the crowning glory to the good work, the slaves of Columbia will present an appropriate token of their regard for him who has made the first practical issue for their preservation and protection of their rights and enjoyments as the happiest labourers on the face of the globe. From the ‘South Carolinian’, 27 May 1856. Source D We received yesterday a report of Rev. Mr Kirk’s speech. It reads as follows: ‘He pointed to the thunder cloud that hung over us. “God,” said he “may avert it. Man cannot. Coaxing, compromising, letting alone are all too late. Mr. Brooks is nothing in this matter. Mr. Douglas is nothing in this matter. The doctrine that a negro is not a man and the doctrine that the negro is a man have now come to a death struggle. Neither will yield until a continent has been swept with the deluge of civil war”.’ Patriotic citizens! Consider this example of all the mad resolutions which turned up yesterday. Is this wildness to be publicised as the views of the solid men of Massachusetts? Are they ready to cast off in a day what it cost so much precious blood to win and so much God-given intellect to preserve? Shame on the whole Beecher, Sharps rifle, fanatical brood who are engaged in the terrible work of stirring up the community to such a dreadful outcome. From the ‘Boston Post’, 3 June 1856. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast the responses of the states of South Carolina and Massachusetts in Sources C and D to news of the caning of Senator Sumner in May 1856. [15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that the caning of Senator Sumner was a disaster for the South? [25]

6 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 The League of Nations and the Spanish Civil War 3 Read the sources and then an swer both parts of the question. Source A The youth of Spain fall in thousands in the trenches of freedom as the victims of Fascist aeroplanes and the foreign war material delivered month after month, despite the non-intervention agreement, by those who base their international policy on the systematic breaking of treaties and their international undertakings. Madrid, the capital of a member of the League of Nations, has been reduced to ruins. The women and children of Madrid have been butchered in hundreds by bombing planes under the orders of rebel generals, supplied by states which have, in fact, begun a war, and which are continuing to make war, while statesmen talk of preserving peace. An international war is raging on Spanish soil. The worst thing that could happen to the League of Nations would be to contribute, by its own silence and inaction, to the spread of this war. The Spanish Foreign Secretary addressing the League of Nations’ Assembly, December 1936. Source B Spain is the second victim after Ethiopia of Fascist weapons. Events in Spain presented the Great Powers with a new problem. It was not a war between two countries, but a revolt against a constitutionally elected government. What attitude should the other countries adopt in these circumstances? The Great Powers chose neutrality, non-intervention, an idea which originated in Britain. The League of Nations regards the war in Spain as a civil war. As there is no article in the Covenant to determine the League’s attitude in a civil war, the non-intervention agreement was not in conflict with the Covenant. But when Italy sent military planes to Spain, Spain’s Foreign Secretary appealed to the League. He pointed out the great danger to peace if it should become the custom for a country to support a rebellion in another country with military forces without any declaration of war. The League demanded evidence, though this was already available. Now, non-intervention was in conflict with the Covenant. In the face of a military attack on one of its members, the League of Nations has no right to declare itself passive. But the League did nothing. From an article entitled ‘Spain – The Battlefield of Capitalism’, by a Danish journalist, 1937.

7 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 Source C Statements by TUC delegates: If the government had agreed to the non-intervention policy in order to prevent a world war, they should ensure that the policy was made absolutely effective. The considerable delay in getting it started had worked to the prejudice of the Spanish government. Italy’s policy was one of invasion. Although the Italian government had agreed to non-intervention, they were violating this all the time. As requested by the Spanish government, Britain should use its influence to examine the allegations regarding the nature and extent of Italian involvement. The presence of Italian troops in Spain was sufficient reason for applying the Covenant of the League of Nations. The British government should take strong measures to stop Franco gaining assistance from the Fascist Powers, Italy and Germany. The government should bear in mind that similar actions might take place in the future in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. Statement in reply by Mr. Eden, Foreign Secretary: It was in Britain’s interests to avoid becoming involved in war. Non-intervention was better than a policy of threats, for it was no use saying to a country unless it did a certain thing something would be done to it, if one was not prepared to take that action. Gaining accurate information about the extent of foreign involvement was difficult. Much of the information had proved to be unreliable. The Italian government, through its ambassador, had denied sending men to Spain. Without the non-intervention agreement, many Italians and Germans would undoubtedly have been going to Spain. From the minutes of a meeting between the British Foreign Secretary and representatives of the British Trades Union Congress (TUC), March 1937. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast the views expressed by the Foreign Secretaries of Spain (Source A) and Britain (Source C) regarding the effectiveness of the non-intervention policy adopted by the League of Nations during the Spanish Civil War. [15] (b) ‘In adopting a policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the League of Nations failed to honour its Covenant commitments.’ How far do Sources A to C support this view? [25]

8 9389/12/M/J/15 © UCLES 2015 BLANK PAGE 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. To avoid the issue of disclosure of answer-related information to candidates, all copyright acknowledgements are reproduced online in the Cambridge International Examinations Copyright Acknowledgements Booklet. This is produced for each series of examinations and is freely available to download at www.cie.org.uk after the live examination series. 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.

® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations. CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2015 series 9389 HISTORY 9389/12 Paper 2 (Document Question 12), 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 May/June 2015 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/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 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 sources 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/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 Problems facing Italian nationalism Indicative content (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree about the principal problems facing those who wished for a united Italy? [15] Both sources reflect on the state of Italy following the end of the Napoleonic wars and the outcomes of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Source A, a private dispatch from the Piedmontese ambassador, comments on the various states which between them rule Italy. He is critical of Naples and the Papacy and surprisingly realistic about the situation of his own state, Piedmont. He bemoans foreign intervention in Italy as well as the excessive power of the Papacy. Source B, a journal (and thus private) of a French author, written the year before, goes further in his critical comments on the various states of Italy – and Austria as well. Source A says more about Piedmont, which is no surprise. Both are critical of the Pope’s rule over the Papal States. Source A writes more from the perspective of Italy, focusing more on its vulnerability to attack by external powers. Source B is just rude about most Italian states and especially the influence of the Catholic Church. Source A is more measured in its language while its descriptions are less lurid than Source B’s. Source B is too emotional to be reliable, while Source A would have been written to gain the support of Russia – presumably against Austria – which is a bit odd because in 1818 Austria and Russia were close allies in the reactionary Holy Alliance. Thus neither source is really trustworthy. (b) ‘The main obstacle to Italian unification was Austria.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25] Context: The 1815 Treaty of Vienna had increased Austrian presence in Italy when it formally gained Lombardy-Venetia, mainly to contain revolutionary threats across the peninsula. The rulers of the various Italian states accepted this great power presence as they were not too keen on revolution either. The dominance of the Papacy, religious across Italy, secular within the Papal States, reinforced the forces of conservatism. Italian nationalists were rarely seen or heard. Reaction and repression ruled. The idea of a united Italy had very few supporters. There was no Italian equivalent of the German Confederation set up by the Congress of Vienna. The late 1810s were a time of triumph for the forces of conservatism, a time of defeat for liberalism and nationalism. The system of control and repression established by Metternich was at its most powerful. Minor revolts occurred a few years later, in 1820–21, when the Carbonari inspired revolts in various states across Italy. They were easily defeated, thanks to their own weaknesses and the strength of the Austrian forces. Italian nationalist movements did emerge by 1830–31, when Mazzini established Young Italy with the aim of establishing a united Italian republic by means of popular revolution. They had little success. More realistic politicians sympathetic to gradual change began to emerge in the 1840s, most notably the Piedmontese politician, Cavour.

Page 4 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Analysis: None of the sources list Austria as the main obstacle to unification. Source B makes no direct reference to unification and little to Austria. It focuses on the differences between the states of Italy. Austria is stated as treating Italy as a colony to exploit, which suggests dominance in its own economic interests rather than control for political reasons. The main obstacle to the unification of Italy according to Source B is the disunity of the states of Italy. Source A says much the same, referring to the rich and fertile lands controlled by Austria, though it also gives some support for Austria exercising a degree of political supremacy, at least in the north of Italy. The only mention of Austria made by Source C is very indirect, very implicit as Mazzini talks of Italian monarchs having to make concessions to foreign courts, the most obvious of which would be the Habsburg Empire. Source D does not make even an indirect reference to Austria. He blames the failure to unify Italy on the idealism of the revolutionaries and the power of the ruling classes. These sources need evaluating against contextual knowledge. Evaluation: Two of these sources, A and D, come from the Piedmontese ruling class, the first from a diplomat, the second from a politician. The first had reasons of state for omitting any consideration of Austria in Italy. In 1818, a Piedmontese official would know full well that Russia and Austria, Alexander I and Metternich, were close partners in an anti-nationalist alliance. The diplomat states his preference for a strong state in northern Italy, by which he must mean an expanded Piedmont, which can only be at Austria’s expense. Presumably, he is hoping that Alexander I and Russia can contain Metternich’s inevitable opposition to such plans. This makes Source A less reliable than it seems. Source D is from Cavour, the later architect of Italian unification, though here writing before the start of his political career. He too had his reasons for not mentioning Austria. Probably writing for an Italian audience, Cavour wanted his readers to reflect on the realities of power within Italy, on how Italians were themselves responsible for the failures of the revolutions of 1820–21 and 1830. He was trying to educate literate, middle class Italians because they would provide the power behind future political change that he saw as necessary. Source C is from another powerhouse of Italian unification, Mazzini. This source is probably part of the statement establishing Young Italy, the organisation set up to establish a united Italy. Believing that Italians were responsible for their own fate, Mazzini gave little time to consideration of Austria. As with Cavour in Source D, he was trying to inspire Italians to action, albeit in a more revolutionary way. The outlier is Source B in that (a) it is written by a Frenchman, and (b) it is for the writer’s own use. The source, full of derogatory comments about Italian states, is most unreliable. However, it is useful in giving an outsider’s view of a peninsula and a people prone to quarrel and to argue. The sources provide some fascinating contrasts of opinion about Italian nationalism between 1815 and 1848. That they never properly address the reality of Austrian power shows their unreality. Cavour, however, was to come face to face with that power in the 1850s, when he had to turn to France to help evict Austria and establish that strong state in northern Italy proposed by the Piedmontese diplomat some forty years earlier.

Page 5 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Caning of Senator Sumner in 1856 Indicative Content (a) Compare and contrast the responses of the states of South Carolina and Massachusetts in Sources C and D to news of the caning of Senator Sumner in May 1856. [15] According to the South Carolinian, Source C, the news that Preston Brooks had caned Senator Sumner was welcomed by the people of South Carolina, both freemen and slaves, white and black. At a time when politics was for men only, even the women of South Carolina gave Brooks their support. The support of some slaves comes as a real surprise. It is very doubtful that their support was freely given. The Boston Post, Source D, might be expected to be as critical of the beating of Sumner as Source C had been supportive. The response, however, is more nuanced. The Post identifies the very strong response of critics of slavery such as the Rev. Mr Kirk, who reportedly argued that people such as Preston Brooks would be swept aside in the coming civil war. This group of abolitionists thus responded to the news with very dramatic, apocalyptic language. The Boston Post reports this view in order to criticise it as coming from ‘a fanatical brood’ and being unrepresentative of the ‘solid men of Massachusetts’. (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that the caning of Senator Sumner was a disaster for the South? [25] Context: Representative Preston Brooks caned Senator Sumner in the chamber of the US Senate because two days previously Sumner had made a very strong personal attack on Brooks’ uncle, Senator Butler of South Carolina, even alluding to a mild physical disability he had. This had come at the end of a very long and very emotional speech entitled ‘The Crime against Kansas’ which blamed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its two authors for the problems in Kansas. The authors were Senators Douglas and Butler. Brooks thought the speech to be a crime against the honour of both Butler and South Carolina. While Sumner was working at his desk in the Senate, Brooks walked up to him and launched an assault so fierce that he broke the cane he was using. Sumner did not return to the Senate for over three years. Censured by the House, Brooks resigned and was immediately re-elected. There was a strong reaction in both North and South, usually along sectional lines: the North lambasted Brooks, the South defended him. Analysis: Source A is a contemporary cartoon of the caning. In the background are Senators presumably, some of whom are standing and watching rather than intervening to stop the beating. The cartoon shows Brooks raising his cane while Sumner, on the floor, holds a quill pen against him. The title of the cartoon uses the beating to comment on Southern values. It does so by highlighting the contrast between the assault and the chivalry and good manners which the South saw as distinguishing itself from the North. Source A certainly supports the assertion. Source B, which argues that the beating was one of many assaults by slave power against the North, also makes the wider case for the assertion. Source C, from South Carolina, argues the opposite, maintaining that the beating will help protect the rights of the slaves themselves. Source D focuses on the response in the North, which is shown to be divided between radical abolitionists and moderate constitutionalists. If Northern responses to the caning are divided, then the beating might not have been quite so disastrous after all.

Page 6 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Evaluation: The provenance of Source A does not give information with which to evaluate the cartoon. One other source gives some: Source B renames Southern chivalry as Southern cowardice, which puts the cartoon’s comment in stronger terms. Source B is from a Northern newspaper. Source A must be as well. Both are against the South. Their interpretation is one-sided. However, contextual knowledge suggests that Source A is reliable, that the comment is deserved. Brooks chose a cane used to beat dogs rather than challenge Sumner to a duel as he was no gentleman. Several senators did stand by and let the assault continue. Thus Source A has some credibility, despite being a cartoon. Source B argues that this violent incident indicates how the South is leading the offensive against democracy and liberty, as shown in Kansas. The first part of Source D, the report of Rev. Kirk’s speech, could be used to challenge this argument as it shows the North aggressive in its defence of democracy. Events in Kansas, however, broadly support the arguments of Source B. Source C makes no reference to the wider context of the caning of Sumner. It does show the unity of all those in the South – or at least in parts of South Carolina – in defence of slavery. Thus the caning is not seen as disastrous for the South. The final part of Source C, the assertion about slaves being ‘the happiest labourers’ in the world, is open to serious doubt. There is a contradiction within the source: slaves cannot have rights, by definition. The evidence of anyone who believes such is seriously undermined. Contextual knowledge also challenges Source C. The increasing number of Fugitive Slaves using the Underground Railroad following the Fugitive Slaves Act of 1850 can be used to do so. Source D shows how some in the North have reacted furiously to the news of Sumner’s caning while some have been more restrained in their response. The other sources do not help evaluate Source D. Contextual knowledge suggests that moderates such as the ‘solid men of Massachusetts’ lost ground to the ‘fanatical brood’ of abolitionists, thereby making North-South conflict much more likely. The only source which challenges the assertion, Source C, is shown to be much less reliable than the others. Even after evaluation, the assertion remains valid.

Page 7 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 The League of Nations and the Spanish Civil War Indicative Content (a) Compare and contrast the views expressed by the Foreign Secretaries of Spain (Source A) and Britain (Source C) regarding the effectiveness of the non-intervention policy adopted by the League of Nations during the Spanish Civil War. [15] The Spanish Foreign Secretary (Source A) argues that the non-intervention policy is not working. He claims that, despite agreeing to observe the policy, Fascist governments (Italy and Germany) are ignoring it and sending equipment to the rebel generals fighting against the Spanish government. As a result, the war in Spain is no longer a civil war, but an ‘international war’. The British Foreign Secretary (Source C) argues that the non-intervention policy is effective. Without it, he claims, many Italians and Germans would be fighting with the rebels in Spain. The implication is that there are not many Italians and Germans in Spain. He clearly accepts the Italian Ambassador’s denial that Italy has sent men to Spain in defiance of the non-intervention policy. While differences are clear, similarities might be less obvious. There are two. One is that both Foreign Ministers accept a need to take some kind of action with regard to the Spanish Civil War. They are proposing, however, very different kinds of action: the Spaniard wants more interventionist action led by the League of Nations; the Englishman wants to act to hold the ring, allowing civil conflict while containing the risk of an international European conflict. The second difference is that both Foreign Secretaries put their national interests, as articulated by their national governments, before any other. The Spanish national interest was to defeat the rebels, which it could not do without international help. The British national interest was to contain the Spanish Civil War and thus prevent another European war by keeping open contacts with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Source A is by the Spanish Foreign Minister at a public meeting of the League, which he wants to influence. It is bound to be emotional, one-sided and thus unreliable. Source B is by the British Foreign Secretary, a Conservative politician, at a private meeting with a leading domestic institution of the Left. In terms of the effectiveness of non-intervention, both will be one-sided and far from trustworthy. (b) ‘In adopting a policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the League of Nations failed to honour its Covenant commitments.’ How far do Sources A to C support this view? [25] Context: When the Spanish Civil War broke out, the League of Nations viewed it as an internal Spanish matter. Under Article 10, the League undertook to respect and preserve ‘the territorial integrity and existing political independence’ of its members. As a result, the League had neither the right nor the responsibility to become involved in a civil war. The non- intervention policy was designed by Britain and France to ensure that the Spanish Civil War remained a purely Spanish affair, provoking no wider conflict. Italy and Germany were among the 24 countries which formally agreed to this policy. The civil war did, however, become a symbol of the wider ideological struggle, fascism against communism. Despite the non-intervention policy, both sides received support from outside Spain. Individuals volunteered for both sides. Governments supported both sides: Italy and

Page 8 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Germany for the Nationalist rebels, the USSR for the government. This took the form of military men and equipment. The Spanish government considered this to be an act of war, arguing that events in Spain were now endangering world peace and consequently concerned the League. As proof of its accusation, the Secretary-General was supplied with photographs and other documents showing German and Italian intervention. The British government claimed that this evidence was unreliable, preferring to believe the denials coming from the Italian and German governments. Note that the policy of non-intervention was developed by Britain and France separately from the League of Nations. Analysis: All three sources contain some evidence in support of the hypothesis. Source A argues that the Spanish Civil War is no longer a civil war. It has become an ‘international war’ since Franco’s rebels are being given military support by Fascist governments. ‘By its own silence and inaction’ the League of Nations is doing nothing to prevent this. The non- intervention policy was not working because Fascist governments were consistently breaking their agreement to support it. The Spanish Foreign Minister is highly critical of the League’s failure to take effective action, with the clear implication that it is failing to adhere to its own Covenant. Source B argues that the League of Nations should have taken action under the Covenant once Italy sent military support to Franco. This was effectively a military invasion of Spain, a member of the League of Nations. The writer dismisses the League’s argument that it needed evidence of Italian involvement, claiming that this already existed. The first part of Source C, from the TUC, argues that Italy’s actions were effectively an invasion of Spain. Since a member state of the League of Nations was being attacked by a foreign country, the League should take action under the Covenant, as requested by the Spanish government. Failure to do this would be seen as a weakness and might lead to further aggressive acts, as later occurred against Czechoslovakia. The sources also contain evidence to challenge the hypothesis. As Source B states, it was appropriate for the League of Nations to adopt a policy of non-intervention towards the Spanish Civil War, at least at first. The Covenant precluded the League from becoming involved in the internal affairs of a member state. Therefore, the League could not take sides in the civil war. The key issue regarding the non-intervention policy, as pointed out by the TUC delegates in Source C, was to ‘ensure that the policy was made absolutely effective’. The second part of Source C, from the British Foreign Minister, claimed that there was no reliable evidence to suggest that the policy was being ignored by foreign governments, quoting the categorical denial of Italian involvement by the Italian Ambassador. Without such evidence, the League was constrained by its Covenant not to get involved in what was seen as a civil war. Evaluation: Source A, a public speech by the Spanish Foreign Minister at a time when the rebels were threatening to take Madrid, was an understandably emotional account of events in Spain. He uses highly emotive language to assert that Spain is being attacked by foreign armies. He is highly critical of the League of Nation’s failure to help the Spanish government against foreign aggression. Representing one of the sides in the civil war, his speech could be seen as highly biased. It gives no hard evidence of Italian or German involvement, merely accusations that Franco is being supplied with ‘war materials’ by Fascist governments. The British government (as shown by the Foreign Secretary’s statement in C) chose not to believe these accusations, preferring to accept the denial by the Italian Ambassador. This cross-referencing further undermines the reliability of Source A – though Source B helps to support the claims of Source A.

Page 9 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS/A Level – May/June 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Source B, from an article by a Danish journalist writing in the second year of the war, clearly believes the Spanish Foreign Minister’s claims regarding the involvement of Italy and Germany. As a journalist, he may have first-hand experience of such involvement. This interpretation helps undermine the claims made by the British Foreign Minister (Source C). Source C itself contains two separate interpretations of the civil war. In the first part, the TUC delegates represented the Labour movement in Britain, which would be strongly opposed to Fascism. The TUC delegation claims that Italy and Germany are breaking their agreement to uphold the non-intervention policy, thus supporting Sources A and B. It argues that the British government should, through the League of Nations, take effective action against Italy and Germany. The TUC’s fears that failure to do this would lead to future aggression, for example in Czechoslovakia, were to prove prophetic. In the second part of Source C, the Foreign Secretary argues that the non-intervention policy is working and questions the reliability of evidence, suggesting otherwise. This could be seen as naïve or disingenuous, as events were soon to prove that Italy and Germany were indeed supplying Franco with military men and equipment. It certainly supported the government’s appeasement strategy. As the Foreign Minister makes clear, Britain did not want a major war, something which he saw as inevitable if action were to be taken against Italy and Germany. All three/four sources are unreliable in their different ways. Contextual analysis, however, would argue that the second half of Source C was the least reliable of all.