Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2018 Oct/Nov Paper 1 · Variant 1

This document consists of 7 printed pages, 1 blank page and 1 Insert. DC (PB (PA/DG)) 150172/1 © UCLES 2018 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level * 2 9 4 7 0 3 0 6 5 3 * HISTORY 9389/11 Paper 1 Document Question October/November 2018 1 hour No Additional Materials are required. READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST An answer booklet is provided inside this question paper. You should follow the instructions on the front cover of the answer booklet. If you need additional answer paper ask the invigilator for a continuation booklet. 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. The marks are given in brackets [ ] at the end of each part question.

2 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 Section A: European Option Liberalism and Nationalism in Italy and Germany, 1815–1871 Garibaldi’s contribution to Italian Unification 1 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Garibaldi has become intoxicated by success. He is planning the wildest schemes. As he is devoted to the King he will not help Mazzini or the republicans who have their role to play. He feels it is his duty to free Italy stage by stage before turning her over to the King. He wants dictatorial powers and the right to raise his own army. He hates the government of Piedmont and he treats it in a very bad way. He has a generous character but also a wild nature. He was hurt by the loss of Nice. I even think that his desire to overthrow our government is as strong as his desire to throw out the Austrians. Unless we prevent Garibaldi from conquering Naples it will have dire consequences. Cavour, writing to Nigra, his agent in Paris, July 1860. Source B Garibaldi has great moral power. He commands enormous prestige in Italy and in Europe. You are mistaken when you say I stand as Europe’s defence against him. Garibaldi has done Italians the greatest service a man can do. He has given them self-confidence. He has shown Europe that Italians can fight and die to reconquer a fatherland. It would still be highly desirable if a revolution in Naples came about without him, as that would reduce his influence. However, if he should liberate southern Italy we would have no choice but to go along with him. This might involve us in a war with Austria which could be a major problem. However, if our soldiers really wanted a fight they could beat the Austrians who I do not think now have the stomach for a fight. Cavour, writing to Nigra, his agent in Paris, August 1860. Source C Today I got close to Garibaldi in the fighting. If there is real danger, he will always go to the front. He is simple in character but appears totally honest. To the populace of Naples he was a saint sent by God to deliver them. He has excellent political sense as well as real military skills. He is clever enough to respect religious beliefs. He is a dictator, but a sensible one. However, a much greater challenge awaits further North and without the power of Milan and the bayonets of France little will happen for Italy. From ‘Garibaldi’ by Marc Monnier, a Swiss journalist, 1861.

3 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 [Turn over Source D The Neapolitan ships had left the harbour that morning, though they returned shortly after I gave the order to enter the harbour and land. The presence of two English warships in some degree influenced the determination of the Neapolitan commanders and gave us time to get our troops ashore. The noble English flag helped prevent bloodshed. The assertion, however, made by our enemies, that the English had directly influenced our landing, was inaccurate. The British ships made the Neapolitans hesitate to fire. This further foreign assistance was of some importance to our success, but not as important as our enemies maintain. From Garibaldi, ‘Autobiography’, published in 1889. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) To what extent do Sources A and B show that Cavour’s views on Garibaldi changed? [15] (b) ‘The influence of foreign powers determined the fortunes of Italian nationalism.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25]

4 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 Section B: American Option The Origins of the Civil War, 1846–1861 Jefferson Davis goes to War, 1861 2 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Few men have led a life more filled with stirring or eventful incidents than Jefferson Davis. Personally, he is the last man who would be selected as a ‘fire-eater’. He is a prim, smooth- looking man with a precise manner, a stiff soldierly appearance and a reserve which at first is off- putting. However, he has a naturally friendly manner which endears him to all by whom he may be surrounded. As a speaker he is clear, forcible and argumentative; his voice is clear and firm. He is in every way fitted for the distinguished post as President of the Confederacy to which he has been called. From the ‘New York Herald’, 11 February 1861. Source B The trip of President Davis from Mississippi to Montgomery was a continuous ovation. He made some twenty-five speeches on the route. Crowds of ladies and gentlemen and military parades with salutes of cannons cheered his arrival at various stations. Mr Davis returned his thanks and said he felt proud to receive the congratulations and hospitalities of the people of Alabama. He briefly reviewed the present position of the South and said, ‘The time for compromise has passed. We are now determined to maintain our position and we will make all who oppose us smell Southern gunpowder and feel Southern steel. If force is persisted in, we have no doubt of the result. We will maintain our rights and our government at all hazards. We ask nothing and want nothing. Our separation from the old Union is now complete. No compromises, no reconstruction can now be entertained.’ From ‘The Daily Exchange’, Baltimore (Maryland), 18 February 1861. Source C On my way to Montgomery, brief addresses were made at various places, at which there were temporary stoppages of the trains, in response to calls from the crowds assembled at such points. Some of these addresses were grossly misrepresented in sensational reports made by irresponsible persons. These were published in Northern newspapers, and were not considered worthy of correction under the pressure of the momentous duties then devolved upon me. These false reports, which represented me as invoking war and threatening devastation upon the North, have since been adopted by partisan writers as authentic history. It is sufficient answer to refer to my farewell address to the US Senate and my inaugural address in Montgomery. These two addresses, delivered at an interval of a month, during which no material change of circumstances had occurred, are sufficient to stamp them as utterly untrue. From ‘The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1’, by Jefferson Davis, 1881.

5 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 [Turn over Source D At the end of the week we returned home and my husband began to make provisions for a long absence. Mr Davis was so careworn and unhappy that when we were alone it was piteous to see him. He never gave up hope of a peaceful reunion with the North until the first blood was spilled. He slept little and talked nearly all night. In one of these conversations I asked how the contending sections would be pacified. He said ‘A guarantee of our equal rights would bring the whole country back together.’ He spoke of a dual presidency but did not think that it was practical. He said ‘In any case, I think our slave property will be lost eventually.’ We both congratulated ourselves that he was to be in the field. I thought his genius was military but that, as a party manager, he would not succeed. He did not know the arts of the politician but he did know those of war. From ‘Jefferson Davis: A Memoir’ by his wife, 1890. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence about Davis’s journey from Mississippi to Montgomery. [15] (b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that Jefferson Davis had the qualities needed to be a war leader? [25]

6 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 Section C: International Option The Search for International Peace and Security, 1919–1945 Britain, the League of Nations and the Abyssinian Crisis, 1935 3 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Some sections of the British press have suggested that Abyssinia should submit to Italy, not because the Italian blackmail is just, but because it would be so inconvenient for us if Abyssinia resisted. We might then be called on to do more than just talk in favour of the League! Italy is breaking at least three pledges in its aggression towards a fellow member of the League – the very thing that the League was created to prevent – but many of us do not find that it matters very much. Europe has at its disposal sanctions that Italy could not defy, provided we have the courage to use them. But, instead, the British press, with a few honourable exceptions, is concerned only about our own interests. If this is to be the way of the world, why make treaties at all? Let us have done with Covenants, since they no longer serve to deceive anybody. Let us have done with the League, since ‘collective security’ means simply the security of those strong enough to be secure. If the League cannot enforce one rule for the weak and the strong, sooner or later we are finished. And, if we flinch every time a test arises, we shall have deserved it. From a letter to a British newspaper by F L Lucas, an academic at King’s College, Cambridge, 25 July 1935. Source B I write to inform you, very confidentially, of the government’s present position regarding the Abyssinian issue. Public opinion is greatly hardening against Italy. This is the opinion not so much of extremists or fanatics, but rather the general body of opinion, which regards the League as an instrument of collective security. The people are determined to stick with the League’s Covenant, yet are anxious to keep out of war. These points are self-contradictory, but at present the country believes that they can be reconciled. It is essential that we are seen to support the League in September. It must be the League, and not the British government, which is seen to declare sanctions against Italy impracticable. The blame should be placed on League members who will not play their full part or non-members whose absence would make the application of sanctions futile. Treat this letter as entirely between you and me. From a confidential letter by Samuel Hoare (British Foreign Secretary), to the British Ambassador in Paris, 24 August 1935.

7 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 Source C In conformity with its obligations, the League stands, and my country stands with it, for the collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression. The attitude of the British nation in the last few weeks has clearly demonstrated the fact that this is no variable and unreliable sentiment, but a principle of international conduct to which they and their government hold with firm, enduring and universal persistence. The British people have clung to their ideal of collective security and are not prepared to abandon it. Britain will be second to none in its intention to fulfil, within measure of its capacity, the obligations which the Covenant lays upon it. However, the lack of agreement within the League itself has created uncertainty. From a speech by Samuel Hoare (British Foreign Secretary) to the League of Nations Assembly in Geneva, 11 September 1935. Source D I am bored by this Italian-Abyssinian dispute, and really I fail to see why we should interfere. Though, of course, the League of Nations will stand or fall by it. Why should Britain fight Italy over Abyssinia, when most of our own far-flung Empire has been won by conquest? Sam Hoare has made a terrific Geneva speech in which he backs up the League of Nations, and pledges Britain’s word to uphold the Covenant provided the rest of the world does likewise. Extracts from the diary of Henry Channon, a British Member of Parliament, 1935. [Published in 1967] Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence of how far the British government remained committed to the Covenant of the League of Nations. [15] (b) ‘In 1935, British public opinion was in favour of supporting the League of Nations in taking strong action against Italy.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? [25]

8 9389/11/O/N/18 © UCLES 2018 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.

This document consists of 14 printed pages. © UCLES 2018 [Turn over Cambridge Assessment International Education Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level HISTORY 9389/11 Paper 1 Document Question October/November 2018 MARK SCHEME Maximum Mark: 40 Published 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 International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes. Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2018 series for most Cambridge IGCSE™, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level components.

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 2 of 14 Generic Marking Principles These general marking principles must be applied by all examiners when marking candidate answers. They should be applied alongside the specific content of the mark scheme or generic level descriptors for a question. Each question paper and mark scheme will also comply with these marking principles. GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 1: Marks must be awarded in line with: • the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question • the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question • the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts. GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 2: Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions). GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 3: Marks must be awarded positively: • marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme. However, credit is given for valid answers which go beyond the scope of the syllabus and mark scheme, referring to your Team Leader as appropriate • marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do • marks are not deducted for errors • marks are not deducted for omissions • answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these features are specifically assessed by the question as indicated by the mark scheme. The meaning, however, should be unambiguous. GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 4: Rules must be applied consistently e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed instructions or in the application of generic level descriptors.

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 3 of 14 GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 5: Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question (however; the use of the full mark range may be limited according to the quality of the candidate responses seen). GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 6: Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should not be awarded with grade thresholds or grade descriptors in mind.

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 4 of 14 Part(a) Generic Levels of Response: Marks Level 4: Makes a developed comparison 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. 12–15 Level 3: Compares views and identifies similarities and differences Compares the views expressed in the sources, identifying differences and similarities. Begins to explain and evaluate the views using the sources and knowledge. 8–11 Level 2: Compares views and identifies similarities and/or differences 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. 4–7 Level 1: Describes content of each source 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. 1–3 Level 0: No relevant comment on the sources or the issue 0

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 5 of 14 Part(b) Generic Levels of Response: Marks Level 5: Evaluates the sources to reach a sustained judgement 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. 21–25 Level 4: Evaluates the sources 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. 16–20 Level 3: Uses the sources to support and challenge the statement 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. 11–15 Level 2: Uses the sources to support or challenge the statement 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. 6–10 Level 1: Does not make valid use of the sources 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. 1–5 Level 0: No relevant comment on the sources or the issue 0

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 6 of 14 Question Answer Marks 1(a) To what extent do Sources A and B show that Cavour’s views on Garibaldi changed? Similarities include: • Desire to prevent Garibaldi from ‘conquering Naples’ [A], i.e. Sicily and Naples, and if a revolution did occur in Naples, it should do so ‘without him’ [B]. • Cavour sees Garibaldi as a leading Italian nationalist. In A, Garibaldi is seen as wanting to ‘free Italy stage by stage’ while in B ‘he has done Italians the greatest service’. • Cavour sees Garibaldi wanting to fight Austria: in A ‘His desire to throw out the Austrians’ vs. B ‘we would have no choice to go along with him. This might involve war with Austria’. Differences include: • In Source A, Garibaldi has to be stopped while in Source B Cavour looks to having to work with Garibaldi. • In Source A, Garibaldi is seen as working in his own interest, e.g. to have ‘dictatorial powers’ while Source B talks of the ‘service’ Garibaldi has provided for Italians. The two sources are identical in authorship and audience. The only difference is the date and that is a difference of just one month. The difference is explained by the speed of Garibaldi’s success in Sicily. Having landed in Sicily with his ‘one thousand in May 1860, by the end of July virtually all of the island of was under his control. By the end of August he had crossed the straits of Messina as was close to taking Naples. The sources are useful in showing Cavour’s ability to adapt to changing events. 15

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 7 of 14 Question Answer Marks 1(b) ‘The influence of foreign powers determined the fortunes of Italian nationalism.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? Analysis and evaluation: Source A can be seen as either challenging or supporting the hypothesis. It challenges in that Cavour, while mentioning the Austrians, does not see them as a determining force in Italian politics. More important, whether for good or bad, were the efforts of Italians and in particular Garibaldi. It supports by mentioning Garibaldi’s response to Piedmont’s handing over of Nice to France. This particular French intervention provoked Garibaldi to oppose the Piedmontese government and to sail to Sicily in support of revolution. Developing this Support analysis requires good contextual knowledge. In deciding whether external, great power forces were more important than domestic, Italian efforts, Source A is unreliable. Contextual knowledge shows that in July 1860, Cavour had lost the ability to control fast-moving events in southern Italy. He was briefing his man in Paris, who presumably would brief Napoleon III, to show that he, Cavour, was prepared to stop Garibaldi, even to work against the cause of Italian nationalism, if needs be. The last thing he wanted at that time was for France to intervene in Italian affairs, on whichever side it might be. Source B can be used on either side of the argument. It challenges by asserting that Austria, even if it intervenes in Italy, can be beaten by Italian forces. It supports the assertion in that it shows Austria affecting the course of events in Italy, if not necessarily determining Italian fortunes. The main message of Source B supports the former more than the latter. Source B, from the same author to the same recipient as Source A, has an importantly different message when it comes to the hypothesis. It argues that Italians could come together, if faced with Austrian intervention. Cavour is now suggesting that Piedmont in the north might be forced to cooperate with Garibaldi in the south. Both the rest of Source B and contextual knowledge of events before August 1861 would suggest this was a very optimistic view, making the source unreliable. After that date, Italians did cooperate but evidence from the future cannot strictly be used to confirm earlier assertions. Source C is full of praise for Garibaldi. The foreign journalist asserts that, while he had succeeded in the south, greater challenges awaited in the north. Its main message, therefore, is that ‘without« the bayonets of France’ little would happen to advance the Italian cause. Thus the source supports the hypothesis. Admittedly, ‘the power of Milan’, an Italian city, is also mentioned but that, presumably, alludes to economic power. [Milan became part of Piedmont in 1859, after the Austro-French war, which is too recent to equate the city and the state.] 25

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 8 of 14 Question Answer Marks 1(b) Source C is a memoir of Garibaldi written in 1861 by a Swiss journalist who had accompanied the Italian in his conquest of Naples the year before. This accounts for his praise of Garibaldi. When it comes to the fortunes of Italian nationalism however, writing in 1861 meant that the author had seen Italy unite itself without the help of Austria. This makes his analysis of the situation in 1860 more reliable; he had not changed his analysis in the light of more recent events. Source D, from Garibaldi himself, both supports and challenges the hypothesis. It supports because it says that British ships helped ensure Garibaldi’s forces reached land [whether in Sicily or the mainland is unclear]. However, it challenges the hypothesis by dismissing the importance of English [sic] assistance as a claim put about by his critics. The latter argument is the main message of the source. As an account of the fortunes of Italy, Source D is very unreliable and in several ways. In terms of content, the undeniable facts concerning the English fleet are responded to by mere assertion from Garibaldi, making his argument unreliable. The source is also an autobiography, a notoriously unreliable form of history. Finally, it is published in 1889, almost thirty years after the events described.

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 9 of 14 Question Answer Marks 2(a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence about Davis’s journey from Mississippi to Montgomery. Similarities include: • Both describe crowds along the way • Both describe addressing the crowds • Both say Davis addresses to the crowds were brief. Differences include: • Source B says the ovations were continuous, implying that there were crowds all along the way, whereas Source C says the train stopped only where crowds had gathered, i.e. there were times when there were no crowds. • Source B states that the stops took place at various stations on the route whereas Source C says the stops occurred only where crowds had gathered – which were not necessarily at stations. • Source B says Davis made aggressive speeches, Source D denies that he did so. Source B is from a contemporary newspaper published in the border state of Maryland, Source C a later history/autobiography by Davis himself. Source C will almost certainly aim to justify the actions of the author. The final sentence of Source C undermines the author’s position, as explained below. Does Source B count as a Northern newspaper, about which Source C complains? Strictly, not, as Maryland is a slave state. Source B does contradict Source C’s claim about being misreported. 15

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 10 of 14 Question Answer Marks 2(b) How far do Sources A to D support the view that Jefferson Davis had the qualities needed to be a war leader? Analysis and Evaluation: Note: Answering this question depends more than usual on defining key terms, in this case ‘war leader’. It can be defined solely as a military leader, the leader of armies. The other definition would include civilian leadership as well as military. Both can be credited, though the second definition is the more accurate. Also, challenge and support is more clearly defined when considering war leadership. In terms of military leadership, Source A can be placed on both sides of the argument. It challenges in that a ‘stiff soldierly appearance and a reserve which is at first off-putting’, hardly suggests military leadership potential. It supports in that the final sentence asserts ‘he is in every way [emphasis added] suited to be the Confederate President’. In terms of war leadership, the final sentence of Source A shows it clearly supports the hypothesis. Source A cannot be used to challenge the war leadership hypothesis as the Best leader of the CSA was the best leader of a country at war. Source A is from a Northern newspaper, writing at the time Davis was chosen as CSA President. Its favourable reporting of Davis shows that some Northern sources were sympathetic to the South. [The New York Herald was a Democratic newspaper, though candidates cannot be expected to know that.] these sympathies will almost certainly affect the reliability of the account of Davis, making it unreliable. In terms of military leadership, Source B supports the hypothesis because it reports Davis talking of vigorous military action against the USA. In terms of war leadership, Source B also supports the argument. It includes Davis making crowd-pleasing speeches as well as providing vigorous military leadership. Source B is from a newspaper in a Southern border state which joined the USA in the civil war. This latter point means that many candidates will describe Source B as a Northern source. As a study of Davis, its reliability is brought into question by Source C, which disagrees about both the journey and the speeches – but Source C is from Davis himself, writing some twenty years later. Source B is essentially favourable to Davis, as might be expected of a Southern newspaper – though not a Northern one, if B is seen as such. In terms of military leadership, Source C might be seen as a challenge in that Davis denies his critics’ accusation that he was intent on an aggressive war against the USA. However, Davis shows no intention of avoiding a civil war. There is no clear evidence to support the hypothesis; Davis is more concerned with defending his reputation. 25

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 11 of 14 Question Answer Marks 2(b) In terms of war leadership, Source C partly supports the hypothesis. It shows him as making public speeches on the way to becoming CSA president. On the other, military side, Source C is silent. Source B is from a book written by Davis which was given a title which suggests it was a work of [more objective] history rather than a [more one-sided] autobiography. In reality, it’s the latter. However, Davis’s defence of his position is reasoned, reasonable and appeals to the primary sources of his speeches. Thus his assertions can be tested. They might be more reliable than an account written twenty years later might suggest. In terms of military leadership, Source D supports the hypothesis when it says ‘I thought his genius military’. In terms of war leadership, Source D challenges the hypothesis because it states that Davis lacked political skills. The rest of the source also challenges the prompt as it shows him as pessimistic and almost defeatist in that he believes slavery will eventually be abolished. Source D is written by Davis’s wife many years after the events being remembered. It followed her husband’s history of the Confederacy. By 1890, when the Democrats had regained control of the South, white Southerners were more confident in the rightness of their ‘Lost Cause’. Davis’s wife’s account was bound to sympathise with her husband and her leadership. Her account does not paint him as a hero. It seems surprisingly honest about his limitations. In these ways it can be seen as reliable.

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 12 of 14 Question Answer Marks 3(a) Compare and contrast Sources B and C as evidence of how far the British government remained committed to the Covenant of the League of Nations. Similarities include: • Both show the UK government being committed to supporting the Covenant of the League. • Both show that the government’s commitment reflects and represents the support of the British public for the League Differences include: • Strong commitment in Source C vs. conditional commitment in Source B. Both sources come from the British Foreign Secretary and only a few weeks apart. Source B is a private letter, C a public speech. These differences and the changing international context of the summer of 1935 explain the difference between the two. Source B is likely to be the more reliable of the two given its target audience. 15

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 13 of 14 Question Answer Marks 3(b) ‘In 1935, British public opinion was in favour of supporting the League of Nations in taking strong action against Italy.’ How far do Sources A to D support this view? Analysis and Evaluation: Source A can be seen as either challenging or supporting the hypothesis. It challenges by asserting that the British press, some honourable exceptions excepted, argues that Italy should not be resisted. The author himself supports strong action against Italy but as a member of the British public. The support argument needs to make this point about the author to be valid. The British press would be more in touch with British public opinion than the author of the source. That the author is an academic makes him more out of touch with the public, not a disinterested observer. However, the press might be more of an influence on public opinion than its representation and thus equally inaccurate. However, the need to sell newspapers would ensure that newspapers reflected public views. [It would be interesting to know whether the sales of honourable newspapers, e.g. the News Chronicle rose or fell.] In its argument that the League should act firmly against Italy, Source A is unreliable. The Peace Ballot of 1935 provides supporting evidence. Source B shows the private side of the Foreign Secretary. It both supports and challenges the hypothesis. In support, Hoare states that ‘public opinion is hardening against Italy.’ A few lines later, however, he states that the people ‘are anxious to keep out of war’, even though they support the League. Insofar as ‘strong action’ can involve action short of war, the two statements are not wholly inconsistent. [Hoare uses the latter statement to justify the UK’s pragmatic appeasement of Italy.] Candidates can use Source B to argue either way. Source B is a confidential letter from the Foreign Secretary to a British diplomat. It is likely to be an accurate statement of the British’s government’s views, though not necessarily the British public’s. Hoare is almost certainly uses his assessment of public opinion to support and justify government policies. In terms of public opinion, Source B is unreliable. Source C shows the public side of Samuel Hoare. It is very different from Source B in describing government policy. When it comes to explaining British public opinion, Source C shows the public [= ‘my country’ and ‘the British nation’] more willing to consider strong action against acts of aggression – which in this case must meant Italy, even though it is not mentioned by name. Thus Source C supports the assertion. Source C is a public speech to the League of Nations in September 1935. These three facts alone make it unreliable as a statement about British public opinion. Speaking to the League on behalf of one of its founding members, Hoare is going to show British support for the League, both from the government and, more importantly, the people of the UK. 25

9389/11 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2018 © UCLES 2018 Page 14 of 14 Question Answer Marks 3(b) Source D consists of two brief parts: the first the author’s isolationist view of the Abyssinian crisis and secondly his opinion of the speech from which Source C is an extract. Neither mention the British public. The first paragraph is more relevant, being the view of a member of the British public and one who, as an MP, should be in touch with that public. [Samuel Hoare is also an MP but, as the key government minister, more concerned with government policy than public opinion.] Thus Source D challenges the assertion. Diaries, being private, are usually more reliable than public sources. This diary extract might be seen as a less reliable indicator of public opinion. His view of the crisis is very much his asserted opinion, backed with no supporting evidence. His judgement of Hoare’s speech, labelling a self-serving speech as ‘terrific’ raises further questions about Channon’s judgement. From this we can deduce that Channon was a Conservative MP. Being an MP might make his views of public views more reliable but in the 1930s most MPs took little trouble to keep in touch with their constituents. As an expression of public opinion, Source D is unreliable.