Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2015 Oct/Nov Paper 1 · Variant 2

This document consists of 7 printed pages and 1 blank page. DC (LEG/SW) 92183/3 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level * 6 5 3 3 5 7 8 8 4 4 * HISTORY 9389/12 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 9389/12/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 Bismarck, war and unification 1 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A There is nothing in our attitude to annoy or alarm France, there is nothing to prevent the maintenance of peace for ten or fifteen years by which time the French will have become accustomed to German unity and will have ceased to care about it. I told our generals this spring, when they endeavoured to prove to me by all sorts of arguments that we would beat the French if we went to war at that time, ‘I will still do all I can to prevent war; for you must remember, gentlemen, a war between such near neighbours and old enemies as France and Prussia, however it may turn out, is only the first of at least six, and what should we have succeeded in doing? Ruining France and most likely ourselves into the bargain. Do you think a poor bankrupt neighbour is as desirable as a solvent one? France buys largely from us and sells us many things we want.’ I strove for peace then and I will do so now. But German feelings must be respected or I cannot answer for the people or the King! From an interview given by Bismarck to a British journalist, September 1867. Source B Unhappily I believe in a war with France before long – her vanity, hurt by our victories, will drive her in that direction. Yet since I do not know of any French or German interest requiring a resort to arms, I do not see it as certain. Only a country’s most vital interests justify embarking on a war, only its honour, which is not to be confused with prestige. No statesman has a right to begin a war simply because in his opinion it is inevitable in a given period of time. If foreign ministers followed their rulers and military commanders into the field, History would record fewer wars. On the battlefield and in the hospitals I have seen the flower of our youth struck down by wounds and disease. I would not have a moment’s peace if I thought I had made war from personal ambition and national vanity. I will never advise His Majesty to wage war unless the most vital interests of the Fatherland require it. A letter from Bismarck to a Conservative Deputy in the Landtag, March 1867. Source C We had to avoid wounding Austria too severely; we had to avoid leaving behind in her any unnecessary bitterness of feeling or desire for revenge; we ought rather to reserve the possibility of becoming friends again and regard the Austrian state as a piece on the European chessboard. If Austria were severely injured she would become the ally of France. From Bismarck’s memoirs, published in 1898, describing events in July 1866.

3 9389/12/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Source D There is no longer any getting away from the fact that Count Bismarck has a rare capacity for planning and statesmanship: this man, cold, moderate, heedless of friend and foe, of parties and principles, entirely rooted in the facts, can act for the nation. A letter from a strong supporter of Bismarck, October 1866. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree about Bismarck’s attitude towards France? [15] (b) ‘Bismarck did not want to use war to achieve German unification.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25]

4 9389/12/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Freeport Debate between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858 2 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Everyone knows Douglas, a short, thick-set burly man with a fierce bulldog look. Skilled by a thousand conflicts in all the strategy of a hand-to-hand or a general fight, proud, defiant, arrogant, audacious, unscrupulous, ‘Little Dog’ ascended the platform and looked out impudently upon the immense throng before him. The other – Lincoln – is in physique the opposite of Douglas. I must admit that ‘Long Abe’s’ appearance is not attractive. But stir him up and the fire of his genius plays on every feature. Listening to him on Saturday, calmly and unprejudiced, I was convinced he has no superior as an election speaker. The Republicans of Illinois have chosen a champion worthy of their heartiest support and fully equipped for conflict with the great ‘Squatter Sovereign’. From a report of the Ottawa debate in the ‘Chicago Press and Tribune’, 1 September 1858. Source B The debate at Freeport was attended by 20 000 people. At two o’clock the debates began. Lincoln led off by replying to the questions put by Douglas at Ottawa. Lincoln then proceeded to bring out Douglas’s views by asking him some questions. Mr D. replied to Lincoln’s questions. Mr D. here retracts what he said in Chicago. Douglas evidently adapts his speeches to the section of the state he is in, taking for granted that his followers in southern Illinois cannot or will not read the anti-slavery sentiments he may advocate in the north. Lincoln in his reply utterly demolished Douglas and exposed his double dealing and his cowardice so fully that the friends of Douglas slunk away. No more was heard of them while the Republicans held rousing meetings during the remainder of the evening. From the ‘Galesburg Semi-weekly Democrat’, 1 September 1858. Source C The discussion between Douglas and Lincoln drew an immense concourse of people, numbering we think about 10 000, though some put the figure as high as 15 000. The weather was cloudy and cold and in consequence of a high wind which prevailed a part of the time, many were prevented from hearing the speakers. Lincoln had the opening speech and consumed his time in vain attempts to extricate himself from the unpleasant position in which Judge Douglas’s arguments had placed him in Ottawa. Taken as a whole, his speech was made up of lame and impotent conclusions and came very short of the expectations of his friends. Of Douglas’s speech, suffice it to say it was a masterly effort. We heard more than one Republican acknowledge that, much as they admired Lincoln, he was no match for the ‘Little Giant’. From the ‘Freeport Weekly Bulletin’, 2 September 1858.

5 9389/12/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 [Turn over Source D When I was a boy of fourteen I had the good fortune to see and hear Lincoln in one of his series of historic debates with Douglas – at Freeport. I was within a few feet of the low platform from which the two speeches were made and both saw and heard everything which went on. The contrast between the two speakers was immense, not in physique and bearing only but in relation to their supporters and the audience as a whole. Lincoln seemed a man of the people. His arguments were as direct in their appeal to Democrats as to Republicans. Douglas, on the other hand, was the aggressive, defiant party leader, determined to browbeat and cow his opponents by a violence of bearing and expressions of contempt. I came away from the meeting quite aflame with enthusiasm for the new Republican party and especially for Lincoln as its new champion. From an account written in 1917 by a Professor at Illinois University. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast the accounts of the Freeport meeting given by Sources B and D. [15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that, in the debates with Douglas in 1858, Lincoln showed all the talents needed to be a leader of the new Republican party? [25]

6 9389/12/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, 1932–33 3 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Senator Swanson, the US Representative, drew the determined opposition of almost the entire Naval Commission of the Disarmament Conference when he defended the right of the USA and Great Britain to maintain their mighty war fleets. He bore the brunt of attacks by other powers seeking abolition of aircraft carriers and battleships. He created the biggest sensation when he made it clear that the USA is prepared to maintain a fleet of big submarines for the defence of its Philippine possessions unless the Conference abolishes submarines altogether. This raises the danger of possible future naval warfare between the USA and Japan. From a US newspaper report of the World Disarmament Conference, May 1932. Source B While the Disarmament Conference did not accomplish all that was desired, its substantial achievements give great promise for success when it reconvenes in January. When one considers there were more than fifty nations represented at the Conference, with diverse interests and varied needs for defence, it is pleasing that so much should have been accomplished. It assembled under adverse circumstances, with a conflict between China and Japan and with many political complications in Europe. However, it decided to abolish chemical and bacteriological warfare. It absolutely prohibited air attack on civil populations under any circumstances, and prepared plans for the complete abolition of all bombardment from the air. It has committed itself to this abolition provided means can be devised to make it effective. The Conference agreed to limit the size of tanks and provided for the limitation of land artillery. The Conference pledged itself to a substantial reduction in land, air and sea armaments. An encouraging feature of the Conference was that those who voted against the resolution which summarises the work of the Conference, did so not because the resolution went too far, but because it did not go far enough. From a press release by Senator Swanson, US Representative at the World Disarmament Conference, August 1932.

7 9389/12/O/N/15 © UCLES 2015 Source C Cartoon published in a British newspaper, May 1934. Source D It may be questioned whether, when the Conference met early in 1932, there existed the conditions required for ultimate success. In January 1931, several League members expressed the opinion that, in order to ensure the success of the Conference, a considerable amount of political preparation was necessary and that active negotiations between the Governments on the principal political problems outstanding were essential. Unfortunately, little or nothing was done in the year before the Conference assembled. The progress of the Conference was checked because the settlement of these political questions had not been sufficiently prepared in advance and time was spent on a series of fruitless discussions. The Conference faced other difficulties, such as serious events in the Far East and conflicts between Colombia and Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay. Further, when the Conference met, the world was faced with the most serious and widespread economic and financial crisis in history. Economic difficulties were creating political unrest. All these events, creating as they did a general uneasiness, struck at the roots of mutual confidence between nations and troubled the atmosphere of the Conference from the very start. From the official Report of the World Disarmament Conference, 1936. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast Sources A and B as evidence of the USA’s attitude towards the World Disarmament Conference. [15] (b) ‘Nobody really wanted it to succeed.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view of the World Disarmament Conference? [25]

8 9389/12/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 9389/12 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 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 Level – October/November 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1848–1871 Bismarck, war and unification 1 (a) To what extent do Sources A and B agree about Bismarck’s attitude towards France? [15] Indicative content There are areas of both agreement and disagreement. The sources are sympathetic to France. They both show a reluctance to go to war with France. They disagree in that Source B sees war with France as more likely than does Source A. Source B expects war to happen ‘before long’ whereas Source A says that peace should last for 10–15 years, by which time France will have got used to a united Germany and, presumably, war will be unnecessary. Only if France upsets German feelings, according to Source B, might Germany consider war – which is what happened in 1870, if with Bismarck’s help. It is worth noting the very different audiences that Bismarck was addressing. While war is not ruled out in A, Bismarck does wish to appear conciliatory. He presents his generals as being aggressive. He was trying his hardest to prevent any conflict. He argued that it would be highly damaging to both countries and would probably just lead to further wars. The general impression is that of a peace- lover/maker. Source B is more pessimistic about the likelihood of war and while there are the obvious fears, with the reference to the ‘flower of our youth struck down’, the final sentence about ‘the most vital interests of the Fatherland’ requiring war could well be seen as preparing the ground for the future. The difference can be explained by the different audiences Bismarck is addressing: to the British journalist, in Source A, Bismarck is the European statesman; to the Prussian politician, Bismarck is a German nationalist. Neither source is to be trusted. (b) ‘Bismarck did not want to use war to achieve German unification.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25] Context: By 1867, Bismarck had been the Prussian Prime Minister for five years. In that time Prussia had fought two wars: Denmark in 1864, Austria in 1866. He was to fight a third, against France, in 1870–1. In 1867 he established the North German Confederation, a slimmed-down Kleindeutschland. The complete version, accomplished in 1871, would fully incorporate the states of southern Germany: Baden, Bavaria and Württemberg. His famous quote about the big issues of the day being decided by ‘blood and iron’ gave rise to the belief that Bismarck was prepared to use war in order to achieve his goals and especially the expansion of Prussia. War with France was possible as the rise of a united Germany on France’s eastern borders was regarded by many as a threat to French prestige and power. In 1870 Bismarck seemed to manipulate France into a war which Prussia won, thereby completing the unification of Germany. Three wars in eight years would suggest that Bismarck was prepared to use war to unify Germany. Analysis: Note that the question applies to the use of war in general and not just one specific war. Source A supports the assertion, at least with regard to any forthcoming war with France. Bismarck claims to have acted as a restraint upon Prussian generals, who had shown they were prepared to go to war with France in the spring of 1867. Source B shows a similar reluctance to fight France. In both cases, however, Bismarck qualifies his antipathy to war: in Source A war might be necessary in order to ensure that German feelings are respected; in Source B it’s the ‘vital interests of the Fatherland’ which might necessitate war. Source C is Bismarck putting the case for the relatively lenient treatment of Austria in 1866. Here Bismarck is arguing not against going to war but against fighting a prolonged war, even if victorious. Source D approaches the issue in an indirect way. It states that Bismarck has ‘a rare capacity for planning’, which presumably can mean planning for war. Thus Source D can

Page 4 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 be seen as opposing the assertion that Bismarck did not want to use war. Two sources support the assertion, the third is neutral and the fourth opposed. Evaluation: The reliability of all four sources can be seriously questioned. Source A is an interview with a foreign journalist. We do not know whether the interview was published. Even so, it would be used to inform British newspaper articles. The reference to generals in the spring is presumably an allusion to the Luxembourg crisis, which involved diplomatic tensions between Prussia and France and talk of war. Bismarck would be keen to reduce tensions so soon after the war with Austria and a new German state to be established. He would want to reassure the British journalist that he was not thinking of going to war. Source B was a private letter to a fellow right wing German politician, written in March 1867. At that time, the North German Confederation was being established, which was no time for foreign adventures. Source C is from Bismarck’s memoirs, which are notoriously unreliable and self- serving. Everything Bismarck writes need careful testing against the evidence. In this instance, the evidence suggests Bismarck is more reliable than usual. Prussia did avoid wounding Austria too severely. Prussia/Germany and Austria did become friends again, in 1879, as part of the chess of European politics. Source D, a paean of praise for Bismarck, was written by a supporter in 1866, the year of the war with Austria. It is hardly going to be an assessment of the man which strives for objectivity. And all the time, contextual knowledge works to undermine the assertion that Bismarck did not want to use war to achieve German unification – even if the goal of his willingness to use war might be questioned. Was it the unification of Germany or the expansion of Prussia which Bismarck sought?

Page 5 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 The Freeport Debate between Lincoln and Douglas 1858 2 (a) Compare and contrast the accounts of the Freeport meeting given by Sources B and D. [15] Indicative content The two sources are similar in that they both see Lincoln as winning the debate with Senator Douglas. Source B describes a very large meeting in which Lincoln demolished the arguments of Douglas so thoroughly that Douglas supporters left the meeting in a demoralised state. Source D makes no mention of the size of the audience – which is a difference of detail – but is equally convinced about the superiority of Lincoln over Douglas. Another difference of detail is that Source B makes no comparison of the physique and speaking style of the two men while Source D spends some time contrasting the both. A third difference is that Source D concentrates on his own response to the two speakers and their speeches, making no mention of the audience, while Source B does the exact opposite. The difference is due mainly to the contrasting origins of the two sources: Source B is a contemporary newspaper report, Source D an autobiographical account written more than half a century later. The difference raises questions about the relative reliability of the two sources. (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that, in the debates with Douglas in 1858, Lincoln showed all the talents needed to be a leader of the new Republican party? [25] Context: The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were debates between the Republican and Democratic candidates to become US Senator for the state of Illinois. Lincoln was the challenger, Douglas the incumbent. Senator Douglas was one of the national leaders of the Democratic Party and the leading advocate of popular sovereignty – also known as squatter sovereignty – a concept which attempted to defuse the issue of slavery in the territories. Lincoln was little known outside the Midwest. Times were turbulent. Slavery was become more of a national issue following the Dred Scott judgement and ‘Bloody Kansas’. The seven debates, which attracted national as well as local attention, reflected this concern with slavery. They made Lincoln a national figure, even though he lost the ‘election’ to be a US Senator – narrowly – to Douglas. The Freeport debate has been described by Allan Nevins as ‘the most momentous of all the debates’ between the two men. In the months before the debate Lincoln had made his ‘house divided’ speech, which also gained him a lot of attention. By the end of the contest, Lincoln had emerged as a national figure, a prospective candidate for President. Analysis: Source A is a journalist’s report of the appearance of Douglas and Lincoln at the very first of their seven debates. It draws a clear and vivid contrast between the physical appearances of the two men before finishing with praise for Lincoln’s qualities as a debater. Thus Source A shows that Lincoln has the talents and skills needed to lead the Republican Party to electoral victory. Source B supports Source A. It argues that Lincoln ‘utterly demolished’ Douglas in the debate at Freeport. Source C is not convinced. It describes how Lincoln’s speech disappointed his supporters, which suggests that Lincoln lacked the qualities needed to win elections. Source D is the third which argues for Lincoln’s potential as a party leader. It argues that Lincoln’s speech had a broad appeal which Douglas’s lacked. In addition, Douglas was narrowly and aggressively sectional. Though no direct contrast is made with Lincoln on the matter of style, the implication is that Lincoln was the opposite:

Page 6 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2015 9389 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 bipartisan, reasonable and rational. The author of Source E certainly saw Lincoln as the ‘champion’ of the Republican Party. Sources A and B supported him, if less enthusiastically. Evaluation: The four sources were all written by people who attended the Lincoln-Douglas debates. One reported the first debate, three the second. Three were adult journalists, one retired professor aged 73. All are partisan. All can be doubted. All three pieces of journalism are less than reliable. Two – Sources B and C – contradict each other so completely that you wonder if they were reporting the same meeting. They could be seen as cancelling each other out. Both are exaggerating, probably to appeal to the readers of their respective papers. Source A is a little more even-handed but then it does not comment on the content of the debate, unlike Sources B and C. Source D is perhaps the most intriguing. It is taken from a letter written almost seventy years after the debate. The author was fourteen in 1858, which makes him seventy-three when he wrote his reminiscence of the event. How much reliability can be placed on such a memoir, especially given the glorification of Lincoln in the intervening years? His assessment of Douglas is supported by Source A, which helps make Source D a little more reliable but his view of Douglas again might be a reflection of the historical view developed since the civil war. Thus the sources are of limited reliability. Context needs to be considered to help decide which is the most reliable. We do know that following these debates Lincoln did become a national figure and that within two years he was nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for US president. Sources A and D certainly stress Lincoln’s ability as an election speaker for the new Republican party. Whether that skill was all that was needed to lead the party is another matter. Thus the quote could be modified to say that Lincoln showed the talents to lead the Republican Party to electoral victory.

Page 7 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 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 World Disarmament Conference, 1932–33 3 (a) Compare and contrast Sources A and B as evidence of the USA’s attitude towards the World Disarmament Conference. [15] Indicative content Source A suggests that the USA was not prepared to compromise. It was determined to maintain a large fleet of aircraft carriers, battleships and submarines. The USA justified this by arguing that it needed a large fleet to protect its overseas interests. They also argued that Britain had the right to maintain a large fleet to protect its Empire. The source makes it clear that other countries were angered by this uncooperative attitude. Conversely, Source B suggests that the USA was keen for the Conference to make effective decisions leading to the reduction of armaments. The source refers to the decisions made as ‘substantial achievements’. It is clear from the use of language that the US Representative was pleased with the progress which had been made at the Conference. Source A comes from a newspaper report, intended for an American audience, of the Conference. The USA had not joined the League of Nations and was not bound by Article 8 of its Covenant. However, the USA’s approach could be seen as consistent with Article 8. The US Representative argues that America’s national safety required it to be able to defend its overseas possessions. There is an indication that the USA was prepared to compromise; ‘unless the Conference abolishes submarines altogether’ implies that the USA would not maintain a fleet of big submarines if other countries would agree to get rid of theirs. Source B comes from a press release issued by the same US Representative whose seemingly uncooperative stance was reported on in Source A. This was intended for a wider audience than Source A, and Swanson wanted to demonstrate to the world that the USA was keen to support the aims of the Disarmament Conference. As a result, he stresses the achievements made by the Conference despite the difficult circumstances in which it was held, and creates the impression that the USA was a keen supporter of arms limitation. Note that the statement was released at an interim stage of the Conference, which was due to re-convene in January 1933. Tentative agreements and pledges had been made but no decisions had been taken. (b) ‘Nobody really wanted it to succeed.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view of the World Disarmament Conference? [25] Context: The Treaty of Versailles imposed arms reductions on Germany and implied that other countries would also 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 other country had complied, a cause of major 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 against a background of world economic problems, political tensions, issues over reparations and war debts and Japanese aggression against China. Unsurprisingly, national interests held sway and no meaningful decisions were made. Hitler used this as the pretext for withdrawing Germany from both 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 12 © Cambridge International Examinations 2015 Analysis: Source A indicates that the USA was putting its own interests above its international responsibilities to help reduce armaments. It is highly likely that other countries would adopt the same attitude, making it difficult for decisions to be made. Source B suggests there were limitations to what the Conference achieved in that some delegates believed that the draft resolution ‘did not go far enough’. The source was written at an interim stage of the Conference, by which time only draft proposals had been made and nothing definitive had been agreed. Source C implies that the Conference was a complete failure and achieved nothing. The national representatives (on stage) are depicted as aggressive and uncompromising. The cartoonist suggests that world opinion was in favour of arms reduction and wanted the Conference to succeed and that it was the ineptitude of the politicians which caused its failure. Just as the cartoon (C) has the caption ‘The Conference excuses itself’, Source D reads like a series of excuses for the Conference failing to make progress. The source argues that there was a lack of mutual trust between national representatives and that they all put their own interests above their international obligations. The implication is that nothing was achieved as a result. This is particularly evident from the statement that members of the League, a year before the Conference opened, stressed the need for pre- negotiations, yet ‘little or nothing was done’. Countries were prepared to talk in favour of arms limitation, but were not prepared to do anything about it. This suggests that the draft agreements made during the first phase of the Conference eventually came to nothing. On the other hand, Source B lists a number of significant issues over which agreement was reached in principle during the first phase of the Conference. That so many countries were prepared to meet to discuss issues of arms reduction could be seen as an achievement. There is some evidence that countries were prepared to compromise e.g. the implication in Source A that the USA would remove its submarines if other countries did the same. Source D implies that more substantial progress might have been made if circumstances had been better. The implication is that progress might be made in the future when circumstances have improved. Evaluation: Source A was written for a US audience. Since the Conference was still in session when the source was written, it cannot comment on its eventual outcome. By inference, however, it is clear that the USA was determined to protect its own national interests and it is likely that other countries would do the same. The source reports on events without making judgements. Source B was written for release to the world’s press at the end of the first phase of the Conference. It cannot comment on the final outcome of the Conference, merely on the tentative agreements reached at the end of the first phase. There was considerable interest in the Conference world-wide, with public opinion desperate for it to succeed in the hope it would prevent another war. The US Representative wanted to show that the USA was in favour of reaching important decisions about arms reduction and to speak positively about the Conference’s progress. While Source C is based on the opinions of the artist, it also reflects British public opinion which wanted the Conference to succeed. The cartoon is critical of the politicians who represented their countries at the Conference. As the official report, Source D wished to explain why the Conference failed to make substantial progress on the issue of arms reduction. Therefore, it lists the factors which led to the Conference’s failure.