Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2015 Oct/Nov Paper 1 · Variant 1

This document consists of 7 printed pages and 1 blank page. DC (LEG/SW) 92182/2 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level * 0 7 7 5 4 2 0 8 8 5 * HISTORY 9389/11 Paper 1 Document Question October/November 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.

2 9389/11/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 The role of Piedmont in Italian unification 1 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A But how, I shall be asked, can this treaty which may well take us to war, ever help Italy? I will reply in the only way given to us, or perhaps to anyone, to help Italy in the actual conditions of Europe. The experience of past years and of the past centuries has demonstrated how little conspiracies, plots, revolutions and unorganised outbreaks have helped Italy. Far from helping her, they have been one of the greatest disasters which have affected this beautiful part of Europe. These continuous conspiracies and revolutions have damaged the esteem and lessened the sympathy which other peoples of Europe have entertained for Italy. Now I believe that the principal way to improve the position of Italy is to raise her reputation again and to prove to Europe that Italy has enough civilised judgement to govern herself in an orderly fashion, to rule with liberty, to use the most perfect forms of government known and that her military is worth equal to that of our ancestors. From a speech by Cavour to the Piedmontese Assembly, February 1855. Source B This ending of the war is terrible from our point of view. I regret it terribly but we must accept the inevitable and make all we can of the unfortunate position in which that artful old woman Austria has placed us. In England, where the war was popular, we can make our unhappiness at the peace known and let our hostility to Austria be made clear. We need to be more careful with France as the Emperor there sees the peace as the triumph of his policy. Hopefully we should succeed in getting our allies to admit the necessity of forcing Austria to withdraw her troops from the Romagna, and get the need for the destruction of the temporal power of the Papacy admitted in principle. When I spoke to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, he suggested giving Tuscany some parts of the Papal States. If this happens then Piedmont will have to be compensated with the duchies of Piacenza, Massa and Carrara. Letter from Cavour to La Marmora, commander of the Piedmontese army in the Crimea, January 1856. Source C Garibaldi went to Turin and I went with him. Cavour welcomed him with courtesy and friendliness and hinted that he could rely on considerable official help. Cavour even authorised Garibaldi to pass on these hints to others. It seems that Cavour is seriously thinking about the final unification of all of Italy. Garibaldi took his leave of Cavour on very friendly terms and with these encouraging promises of help for our cause. Personally I think it was all an act! What Cavour wants, and I am sure of it, is just for Piedmont to be enlarged with a few sweet miles of Italian soil. Letter from Pallavicino, one of the founders of the National Society, to Manin, August 1856.

3 9389/11/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Source D Two main principles were to inspire the new party that Cavour, I, and others formed in 1852. In home affairs we would resist all reactionary tendencies that might threaten after the recent coup d’état in France. At the same time, in so far as circumstances permitted, we would promote a continuous and progressive development of the freedoms allowed by our constitution, alike in politics, economics and administration. As regards international affairs, we would prepare the way for Piedmont to liberate Italy from foreign rule. Letter from Rattazzi to Castelli, another ex-colleague of Cavour, 1 May 1870. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree on the reasons why Cavour wanted Piedmont to be involved in the Crimean War? [15] (b) ‘Cavour aimed to make Italy a united country.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25]

4 9389/11/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 Lincoln’s views on Slavery 2 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Ladies and Gentlemen: While I was in the hotel today an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favour of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter] I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard of it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of black and white races [applause] – that I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and the black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. Lincoln, in the fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Charleston, Illinois, 18 September 1858. Source B Strictly confidential Hon. John A Gilmer Is it desired that I shall shift the ground upon which I have been elected? I cannot do it. I have no thought of recommending the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia nor the slave trade among slave states. On the territorial question, I am inflexible. It is the only substantial difference between us. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, neither of us has any just occasion to be angry with the other. As to the state laws you mention, I know little of them. I have never read one. If any of them are in conflict with the fugitive slave clause or any other part of the constitution, I should be glad of their repeal. With the assurance of my highest regards, I subscribe myself your obedient servant, A LINCOLN. From a letter to John Gilmer, Whig Unionist Representative for North Carolina, 15 December 1860.

5 9389/11/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Source C The laws of nations and the customs of war as carried on by civilised powers permit no distinction as to colour in the treatment of prisoners of war. To sell or enslave any captured person on account of his colour, and for no offence against the laws of war, is a relapse into barbarism and a crime against the civilisation of the age. The government of the United States will give the same protection to all its soldiers and if the enemy shall sell or enslave anyone because of his colour, the offence shall be punished by retaliation upon enemy prisoners in our possession. It is therefore ordered that for every soldier of the United States enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed into hard labour on the public works and continued at such labour until the others shall be released. The Order of Retaliation, signed by Abraham Lincoln, 30 July 1863. Source D He was pre-eminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely opposition to the extension of slavery. To protect, defend and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed, Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was willing to pursue, recapture and send back the fugitive slave to his master and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the government. The race to which we belong were not special objects of his consideration. We are at best only his step-children: children by adoption, children by force of circumstance and necessity. From an oration by Frederick Douglass, an ex-slave, at the unveiling of the Freedmen’s Monument in memory of Lincoln, 14 April 1876. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence about Lincoln’s policies towards slavery after being elected President. [15] (b) ‘Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery was consistently conservative.’ How far do Sources A to D support this statement? [25]

6 9389/11/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 The League of Nations and the World Disarmament Conference, 1932 3 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A British cartoon from May 1931 about a meeting of statesmen in preparation for the World Disarmament Conference. Source B Without disarmament there can be no lasting peace. The continuation of military armaments in their present extent will certainly lead to new catastrophes. The Disarmament Conference in Geneva in February will be decisive for the fate of the present generation and the one to come. The failure of the Conference would be assured if delegates were to arrive with fixed instructions and aims, the achievement of which is a matter of national prestige. This seems to be universally recognised, and there have recently been a number of meetings between statesmen of various nations to discuss the problem of disarmament in preparation for the Conference. This procedure is a very happy one. We can hope for a favourable o utcome of the Conference if it is prepared for by advance discussions and if, through honest goodwill, an atmosphere of mutual confidence and trust has been effectively created in advance. From an article by the German scientist Albert Einstein, September 1931.

7 9389/11/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Source C The Disarmament Conference will convene in February. When the delegates of 60 nations assemble at Geneva, more than 12 years will have passed since the peace treaties which imposed disarmament on Germany as a precedent to reduction of armaments by other nations. The Conference will aim to fulfil the pledge contained in those treaties, as well as complying with Article 8 of the League’s Covenant, which contemplated reduction of national armaments. The present disturbed economic and financial condition of the world and the political tension existing in Europe, together with the uncertainties created by the problem of reparations and international debts, have been suggested as reasons for delaying the Conference. However, it is the general feeling that the Conference has already been sufficiently delayed, that further postponement would be a blow to the prestige of the League and might arouse dangerous criticism from Germany regarding the sincerity of other nations with respect to armament limitation. From a report by an American journalist, January 1932. Source D At the moment when this Conference, the very purpose of which is the maintenance of peace, begins its work, we are confronted with a situation of extreme gravity in the Far East. It is vital that all signatories of the League Covenant ensure strict observance of this great safeguard against violence and war. While we must have no illusions as to the difficulties which may confront us, we must not allow them to deter or discourage us. We have to break the vicious circle in which nations are again in danger of being caught. Insecurity leads to an increase in armaments, which increases insecurity. Members of the League, under the terms of Article 8 of the Covenant, recognised that the maintenance of peace required the reduction of national armaments. There was a general expectation that this obligation would be speedily carried out. This obligation continues to rest upon all members of the League and they should make every effort at this Conference to discharge it. The world wants disarmament. The world needs disarmament. From the introductory speech by the President of the World Disarmament Conference, 2 February 1932. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B about the value of the meetings which statesmen held in preparation for the World Disarmament Conference. [15] (b) ‘The prospects of the World Disarmament Conference being a success were good.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25]

8 9389/11/O/N/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 Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2015 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 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 Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © 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 Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 The role of Piedmont in Italian unification 1 (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree on the reasons why Cavour wanted Piedmont to be involved in the Crimean War? [15] Indicative content Despite the sources coming from the same politician, there is quite a contrast here. Source A is for public consumption while Source B is a private letter. The treaty mentioned in Source A is the 1855 treaty with Britain and France to provide Piedmontese troops for the Crimean war. Source A maintains that doing so was the only way to help Italy gain international recognition. Actions by Italians within Italy had not helped the Italian cause in the recent past. Sending Piedmontese troops to the Crimea would demonstrate to Europe that Italy was capable of self-government and earn it a place at the table of nations. It has an ‘Italian’ focus. By contrast, Source B focuses more on the situation of Piedmont. It shows Cavour’s dislike of Austria and his desire to gain the support of France and Britain in redrawing the map of Italy but for the benefit of Piedmont. Cavour wants to break Austrian power in Northern Italy and, at least in theory, the temporal power of the Papacy in central Italy. while getting compensation for Piedmont in terms of territory. Arguably the motives were much more mundane here. Though Source B is very different in tone from Source A, both are concerned with the position of ‘Italy’ in Europe, both show a focus on political/diplomatic processes rather than ‘revolutions and unorganised outbreaks’. (b) ‘Cavour aimed to make Italy a united country.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25] Context: The Italian cause had suffered a series of setbacks in 1848–9, when Austria defeated Piedmont twice and Pope Pius IX turned from liberal to conservative. From 1852, Cavour was the liberal-conservative prime minister of Piedmont, leading its modernisation at home while aiming to improve its status abroad. His precise aims for Italy remained obscure. He certainly wanted to liberate Italy from the presence of Austria. Whether he wanted a united Italy was much more doubtful; unifying the more progressive North with the more backward South was almost certainly a goal too far for a politician as pragmatic as Cavour. However, for unity to become possible, Italy had to set itself free. On the evidence of 1848–9, this could only be done with the help of the liberal great powers of Western Europe, Britain and France. The Crimean War gave Piedmont a chance to get in their good books. After the war, Cavour might be able to ask for their support in return, presumably against Austria, if not the Papacy. He also began to look for support from Italian nationalists who were prepared to accept the leadership of Piedmont. One such nationalist was Garibaldi. Analysis: Source A, spoken just before Piedmont went to war, illustrates Cavour’s determination to use the Crimean War to gain international respect and support for Italy. He was well aware that there would be no liberation, let alone unification without it. In his speech to the Piedmontese parliament, Cavour blurs the difference between freedom and unity. Obstacles like Austria and the Papacy were too much for Piedmont on its own. Source B, written just as Russia had accepted peace terms proposed by Austria to end the war, expresses Cavour’s disappointment at what was for Piedmont an early end to the war. Britain would do nothing practical to help free Italy. France, under Napoleon III, might help him redraw the map of Italy in the name of nationalism Thus Cavour began to look to work with nationalist leaders such as Garibaldi, as is shown by Source C, though whether from principle or self-interest was hard to tell, even on the surface. Source D emphasises the focus on liberation, presumably at the expense of independence.

Page 4 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Evaluation: Source A is using Italian patriotism to gain support for a foreign war in which Piedmont has little obvious interest. It is rather surprising that Cavour emphasises the benefits to Italy when he is talking to the parliament of Piedmont. Cavour’s summary of ‘the experience of past years’ is accurate. Thus the speech might be more reliable as an indication of Cavour’s plans than might be first thought. Source B is a private letter and thus perhaps a more reliable indicator of Cavour’s intentions. If so, Italian unity is not Cavour’s prime concern. However it is a letter of a disappointed politician, one who has not achieved what he had hoped and so he might well hide his true intentions, especially to the head of the Piedmontese army in the Crimea. Evaluation of Source C depends upon which part of the source is considered: the report of the meeting of Cavour and Garibaldi or the personal opinion of Cavour expressed by the author. The reportage is accurate, Cavour and Garibaldi met in 1856 and Cavour encouraged Garibaldi’s nationalist ambitions. For his part, Garibaldi was looking to Piedmont for leadership. The Italian National Society, set up a year later, in 1857, also looked to Piedmont. Pallavicino’s cynicism is not entirely substantiated by events. Cavour was looking to expand Piedmont but he also accepted the power of Italian nationalism, as shown by the dramatic events of 1859–60. Source D from one ex-colleague of Cavour to another, looking back on developments of the 1850s from May 1870, a few months before Italy absorbed Rome, is likely to be a romanticised view, even if the description of domestic policies does reflect the reality of the 1850s. This suggests that the statement about wanting to liberate Italy might also be reliable. According to Source D, unity was not the aim – though Rattazzi might have been talking about the early 1850s. Cavour’s aims did change over the course of the decade.

Page 5 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 Lincoln’s views on Slavery 2 (a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence about Lincoln’s policies towards slavery after being elected president. [15] Indicative Content Source B is a private letter, written in the interim between election and inauguration, to a Southern politician who supports slavery. It reveals that Lincoln opposed three possible reforms in the position of slaves. Two would improve their position: abolition of slavery in Washington DC and the slave trade in the South. The other, the expansion of slavery into US territories, would benefit slave owners. The state laws Lincoln refers to are laws passed by Northern states to limit the workings of the Fugitive Slave Act. About these he claims to know little. Lincoln stresses how small the gap was between his views and those of Gilmer. Source C is an executive order of the President, published two years into the civil war. In it, he argues that black soldiers captured by the enemy deserve as much protection as white soldiers. If the enemy does not provide that protection by continuing to treat the black prisoners of war as slaves, then Lincoln ordered that similar treatment would be inflicted on the [white] soldiers under Federal control. Lincoln issued the order in response to the harsh treatment of captured black soldiers by the Confederacy, which still saw blacks as slave property and thus not meriting equal treatment. Thus there is a huge contrast between Lincoln’s position in December 1860 and his position in July 1863. There are contrasts in the provenance of the sources: private vs. public, personal as opposed to official, peace vs. war. Both sources are reliable. The war had changed everything. There is one major similarity between the two sources, however. In both peace and war, Lincoln bases his arguments on law. In 1860, he uses the law of the constitution to justify his action whereas in 1863 he uses ‘the law of nations’, international law, and the ‘customs of war’. Even in the middle of a brutal civil war, Lincoln acts according to the law. In addition, both sources show Lincoln opposed to slavery but not in favour of full abolition. (b) ‘Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery was consistently conservative.’ How far do Sources A to D support this statement? [25] Context: Until 1862–3, Lincoln took a very cautious line towards the sensitive issue of slavery. His later reputation as the ‘Great Emancipator’ arose as a result of his actions while President rather than before. As a matter of principle, Lincoln was always against slavery. The practice of constitutional government, democratic politics and a free market economy caused his position to become more nuanced. He was certainly against the expansion of slavery into new territories, which he saw as the preserve of free white men who should not have to face competition from black slave labour. Thus he opposed the Dred Scott judgement. The fact that all slaves were black brought the issue of race into play. To modern eyes, Lincoln was a racist. He did not believe that the two races should live as one. He favoured the idea that most ex-slaves should either return to Africa or emigrate to new states in central America. On becoming president, Lincoln was intent on preserving the Union and not on freeing slaves. He eventually accepted that slaves should be free because to do so was necessary to win the civil war and thus preserve the Union.

Page 6 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Analysis: Source A mentions slavery only indirectly. It reveals Lincoln’s willingness to accept the existence of racial inequality of whites and blacks. Differences between black and white will exist ‘forever’. On matters of race, therefore, Lincoln is very conservative. Whether that conservatism applies to slavery as well cannot be determined from Source A. Source B does identify Lincoln’s view on slavery. It shows that, even though against slavery, Lincoln accepts the Fugitive Slave Act which many Republicans strongly opposed. Thus when it came to slavery, Lincoln was a cautious conservative, unwilling to support any change in the status quo. Source C reveals a very different attitude towards black soldiers, if not necessarily towards all slaves, in that the order shows Lincoln seeing them as equal to white soldiers. Source D, spoken by an ex-slave eleven years after Lincoln’s death and the emancipation of the slaves, is very critical of Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery, arguing that he always supported the interests of the whites. Source B show Lincoln to be against the expansion of slavery which, while conservative, leads him to oppose white slave-owners, who were expansionist. Thus his attitude to slavery contains some inconsistencies: his principled opposition to slavery is radical, his practical acceptance of slavery conservative and perhaps racially based. Evaluation: Two of the sources are from Lincoln himself. Each needs careful evaluation. One is a private letter, the other a public speech. The letter, Source B, is actually headed ‘strictly confidential’, which suggests that Lincoln did not want his views to be made public. The speech, Source A, is taken from one of Lincoln’s famous debates with Senator Stephen Douglas in 1858. [Charleston is a town in Illinois rather than the city in South Carolina.] The difference of sources might be seen as highlighting the differences between private and public. In public, politicians say what they have to in order to win votes. This would be especially true of this spoken source, taken from the contest to win a seat in the US Senate. The extract shows the audience responding to Lincoln’s comments with ‘great laughter’ and ‘applause’. According to the report, his detailed comments come after the laughter. Thus Lincoln was perhaps saying things which pleased his [white] listeners – and won him more support – rather than expressing his real views about the blacks. He could believe in liberty for the slaves without believing them to be equal. Thus Source A must be viewed with great caution. The letter is perhaps more valuable in helping to identify Lincoln’s views of slavery because Lincoln is likely to be more honest is a ‘strictly private’ letter. However, Lincoln’s private views in 1860 do not greatly contradict his public statements in 1858. There is a big difference between his views of 1858–60 and those of 1863, as shown in Source C, when he shows a commitment of equality of black and white soldiers. This change is more the result of the needs of war rather than any great change of heart. Spoken by the leading ex-slave of the era, Source D attacks Lincoln for being the white man’s president. Douglas’s attack gains credibility because it was made at the unveiling of a monument in recognition of Lincoln’s work in emancipating slaves. Such an occasion would be expected to praise Lincoln, not criticise him. Thus Source D has great credibility, perhaps supported by Sources A and B. These evaluated sources do show Lincoln to have been profoundly conservative on the issue of slavery.

Page 7 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 The League of Nations and the World Disarmament Conference, 1932 3 (a) Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources A and B about the value of the meetings which statesmen held in preparation for the World Disarmament Conference. [15] Indicative content The cartoonist (Source A) believes that the preparation meetings were of no value. The statesmen are depicted as bored, uninterested or stupid. The implication is that nothing of real importance was discussed at these meetings – vague generalisations rather than specific details regarding each country’s responsibilities under the terms of the League of Nations’ Covenant. The League is depicted as a lady holding two symbols of peace – she appears dismayed and frustrated. Einstein (Source B) seems more optimistic about the value of these meetings. He feels that such meetings are essential in order to develop the mutual good will, honesty and trust required if the Conference is to succeed. The meetings would enable statesmen to think beyond their own national interests. Source A implies, therefore, that public opinion in Britain was largely sceptical about the World Disarmament Conference and its preliminary meetings. The expectation that anything meaningful would emerge from the Conference was clearly low. The cartoon clearly expresses the view that politicians lacked the will to make meaningful and decisive commitments regarding arms limitations. Einstein (B) believes that failure to reach agreement on international arms limitations would lead to another war. Therefore the World Disarmament Conference is of vital importance. He is concerned that the Conference will fail if countries put their own interests above their international obligations. He sees the preliminary meetings as a positive sign that statesmen realise the importance of the Conference and the need to prepare for it effectively. Einstein was German (and still living in Germany at the time) and this would have influenced his views. Germany had been forced to undergo arms reduction under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. No other country had carried out arms reduction in line with commitments made under Article 8 of the League of Nations Covenant. Germany expected that the World Disarmament Conference would lead to other nations honouring their commitments, albeit belatedly. (b) ‘The prospects of the World Disarmament Conference being a success were good.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25] Context: The Treaty of Versailles imposed arms reductions on Germany and implied that other countries would reduce armaments. Article 8 of the League of Nations’ Covenant committed member states to arms reduction: The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. Apart from Germany, no country had complied, a major cause of resentment. Most continued to increase expenditure on armaments. For example, Britain argued that it needed to protect its Empire; France, concerned about a possible German revival, claimed security reasons; the USA, not committed to either the Treaty or the League, wanted to protect and extend its Pacific interests. The World Disarmament Conference was designed to enforce the pledges made in 1919–1920. It was held at a difficult time – world economic problems, political tensions, issues over reparations and war debts and Japanese aggression against China (Manchuria). Unsurprisingly, national interests were to hold sway and no meaningful decisions were made. Hitler used this as the pretext for withdrawing Germany from the Conference and the League, and the excuse for embarking on the re-armament of Germany.

Page 8 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 11 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Analysis: Source B suggests that politicians realise the importance of the Conference and that its failure would lead to war. They have made a significant effort to put aside their national interests and to hold preliminary talks in order to develop good will and mutual trust. Source C suggests that it is a positive sign that 60 nations have committed themselves to attend the Conference. Despite major international problems, there was a general feeling amongst politicians that the Conference should not be delayed any further. While Source D accepts that there are major international problems, the source gives three reasons why countries should reach agreement on disarmament at the Conference: world public opinion demands it; it is in every country’s own best interests; countries have an obligation under the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations. On the other hand Source A is pessimistic about the prospects of success as politicians lack the will and intelligence to make meaningful decisions. Preliminary meetings give no reason for optimism. Source B is optimistic but not naïve. There are major issues to overcome (e.g. national interests) if the Conference is to succeed. Source C shows the Conference is held against a background of disturbed international relations. No progress has been made on disarmament. There have been suggestions that the Conference should be postponed yet again. The reasons for going ahead with the Conference (to avoid damaging the prestige of the League and upsetting Germany) do not suggest a positive commitment to disarmament. Germany might have unreasonably high expectations of what other countries were prepared to concede. Source D suggests that there were major difficulties facing the Conference, such as the situation in Far East. Countries had refused to carry out their obligations for over 12 years. Evaluation: Source A is sarcastic and reflects British public opinion that international politicians lacked the will and commitment necessary for the Conference to succeed. The League of Nations is seen as powerless and ineffective. Countries will put their own interests first. Einstein (Source B) is desperate for the Conference to succeed for he fears the outcome otherwise. As a German, he sees the inequality in Germany being forced to limit its armaments while other countries (potential enemies) have steadfastly refused to carry out their obligations. He desperately seeks reasons to be optimistic about the Conference’s prospects of success, seeing the preliminary meetings as a positive sign. However, he is aware of the danger that countries will put their own interests above their international obligations. Source C is a ‘matter of fact’ report which expresses no opinions. Although represented at the Conference, the USA saw itself in some ways as an ‘outsider’ – it had not joined the League of Nations and was not obligated under Article 8 of the Covenant. Its isolationist policy meant that it saw itself as removed from the ‘political tension existing in Europe’. Despite this US policy had a profound effect on ‘the problem of reparations and international debts’. In Source D, as President of the Conference, the speaker’s main task was to ensure that meaningful decisions were reached. He uses emotive language to encourage countries to make genuine commitments regarding arms reduction, for example reminding them of their obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, their obligation to satisfy international public opinion, the dangers implicit in the build-up of armaments. He is implicitly critical of Japan’s actions in Manchuria, using this as an example of what happens when countries ignore their obligations under the League of Nations.