Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2020 May/June Paper 3 · Variant 3

1 Read the extract and then answer the question. By the 1870s much of Africa was still mysterious. No explorer had penetrated far along the Equator towards the interior. Europeans pictured most of the continent as ‘vacant’, a no-man’s land. If there were states and rulers, they were African. But beyond the trading posts on the coastal fringe, and strategically important colonies in Algeria and South Africa, Europe saw no reason to intervene. In May 1873 David Livingstone, the celebrated missionary explorer, died in Ilala, in the unknown heart of Africa, and his sun-dried body was brought home to be buried in London. From his brass- plated tomb, Livingstone’s legacy produced a call for a worldwide crusade to open up Africa. A new slave trade, organised by Swahili and Arabs in East Africa, was eating out the heart of the continent. Livingstone’s answer had been the ‘3 Cs’: Commerce, Christianity and Civilisation, a triple alliance of capitalism. God and social progress. Trade, not the gun, would liberate Africa. The freelance promoters of the partition – the men who followed Livingstone out to Africa and scrambled greedily for their share – are now half-forgotten. In their day they were famous (and infamous), celebrated as heroes, denounced as brutes or hypocrites. Each responded to Livingstone’s call in their own fashion. But they all thought of the crusade in terms of romantic nationalism. Most of them were outsiders of one kind or another, but no less passionate nationalists for that. To imperialism – a kind of ‘race patriotism’ – they brought a missionary zeal. Not only would they save Africa from itself, Africa would be the saving of their own countries. At first European governments were reluctant to intervene. But to most people in their electorates, there seemed a real danger of missing something. Africa offered the chance of glittering prizes. There were dreams of El Dorado, of diamond mines and goldfields criss-crossing the Sahara. In Europe these were the drab years of Depression and mounting stocks of Manchester cotton. Perhaps Africa was the answer to the merchant’s prayers. There might be new markets out there in this garden of Eden, and tropical orchards where the golden fruit could be plucked by willing African hands. In Britain, the Scramble was taken calmly – at first. Then there was growing resentment towards the intruders. Britain had pioneered the exploration and evangelisation of Central Africa, and felt a sense of ownership in most of the continent. Besides, there was a vital interest at stake for Britain. As the only great maritime empire, it needed to prevent its rivals obstructing the steamer routes to the East, via Suez and the Cape. That meant digging in at both ends of Africa. And it was in Protestant Britain, where God and capitalism seemed made for each other, that Livingstone’s words struck the deepest chord. The ‘3 Cs’ would redeem Africa. That was not the way Africans perceived the Scramble. There was a fourth ‘C’ – Conquest – and it gradually dominated. At first European expeditions were too weak to challenge African rulers. It was safer to use blank treaty forms, explained away by empire-minded missionaries, than to use live ammunition. But paper imperialism soon proved inadequate. When effective occupation became necessary to establish control, conflict became inevitable. Soon the maxim gun, not trade or the cross, became the symbol of the age. Most of the battles were cruelly one-sided. At Omdurman, British officers counted 10 000 Sudanese dead or dying in the sand. They made no effort to help the 15 000 wounded. Europe had imposed its will on Africa at the point of a gun. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the British Empire to explain your answer. [40]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 The Causes and Impact of British Imperialism, c.1850–1939 Interpretation/Approach The main interpretation is that whilst Europeans could claim that the Scramble for Africa was undertaken for Africa’s benefit, the reality was that it was about power, markets and the protection of vital interests. Showing complete understanding of this interpretation (Big Message) will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian is concerned to explore the motives of the Europeans involved in the Scramble. In the early phase this is seen through the motives of the individual imperialists. However, the effect of other nations becoming involved is seen as transforming the Scramble into essentially a matter of self-interest, ultimately imposed by force. In L5, candidates will explain and illustrate both the altruistic and self-interested dimensions of European motivation, making the point that the reality contradicted the claim. In L4, only one of these aspects will be properly developed. L3 answers will be focused on sub-messages, for example that Europeans were willing to use force to achieve their aims, or that the British were worried that other Europeans might intervene in Africa. Glossary: the two main areas of interpretation have been (i) on whether imperial policy was determined at the centre (the metropole) or at the periphery (in the territories of the empire). This can involve debates on who was making the decisions at the centre (the ‘official mind’, ‘gentlemanly capitalists’ etc.) or at the periphery (the ‘man on the spot’): and (ii) on whether the British Empire was characterised by a preference for formal (i.e. direct rule over annexed territory) or informal (i.e. indirect control mainly through and for commercial interests). What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.

2 Read the extract and then answer the question. There is a recent tendency to claim that anti-Semitism does not explain the Holocaust. In my view, this is completely misleading. No one claims that there is a straight line from traditional anti-Semitism to its Nazi form, nor does the background to the Nazi murder project consist only of anti-Semitism. But the disconnection between the two raises a very simple question: if there is no connection between anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, why, then, did the Nazis murder Jews and not bicycle riders? There is, quite clearly, both a strong element of continuity and also something new of a nationalist-racist character in Nazi anti-Semitism. Against a background of crisis in Western society, and the specific impact of these crises on German society, anti-Semitism was the central motivation that drove the Nazis to murder the Jews. They could do it, not necessarily because of the identification of German society with murderous anti-Semitism, which was the programme of the governing elite, but because of the identification with the regime as such by vast masses of the German people. To argue for a disconnection between anti-Semitism and the Holocaust makes absolutely no sense at all. However, if we want to answer the question of why the Holocaust happened, there are a number of important preliminary issues to be addressed. We are still battling with the definition of the very subject we are dealing with. Let us be clear: the Holocaust, Shoah, Churban, Judeocide, whatever we call it, is the name we give to the planned annihilation of the Jewish people, and its partial perpetration with the murder of most of the Jews of Europe. The problem of whether this is unique is still a topic of sharp disagreement, and I have stated my position often: to me, the uniqueness lies in the motivation of the murderer, the quest for an annihilation that sentenced all people born of three or four Jewish grandparents to death for the crime of having been born, for purely illusionary, ideological, abstract reasons, to do away with a mythical, non-existent Jewish world conspiracy. A theory is being offered that as the Nazi policy of murder of German mental and other patients, the murder of many Gypsies, and the murder of the Jews were all based on so-called racial, that is hereditary or genetic principles, they are all part of the Holocaust. But Nazi policy towards Italians, Romanians and Japanese was also based on racist principles, and I would suggest that there is a world of difference between problems that the Nazis had with the ‘purity’ of their own ‘race’ and the social irritant that they saw in the Roma people, on the one hand, and the universal threat to Nazi humankind they saw in the Jews. The attitude to Jews was a central pillar of Nazi ideology and it could, in the end, be solved only by total murder. Attitudes to the Gypsies were not a central part of Nazi ideology, and to the best of my knowledge there never was a plan to murder all Gypsies. The T4 programme of murder of the handicapped was a derivative of internal German-Nazi concerns. To see these issues as the same is, I think, to confuse them. It does not do any service to the Roma people to mix them up in the same analytical framework with the Jews by defining the Holocaust as including both. The suffering of each Gypsy was exactly the same as the suffering of a Jew, a Pole, or anyone else. But the motivation of the perpetrator was different. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Holocaust to explain your answer. [40] Section C: Topic 3 The Origins and Development of the Cold War, 1941–1950

Mark scheme: 2 The Holocaust Interpretation/Approach The main interpretation is that the proper and accurate definition of the Holocaust should comprise only the planned annihilation of the Jews, because the motivation for it was Nazi anti-Semitism. Other groups targeted by the Nazis should not be regarded as victims of the Holocaust, as the motivation for their murder was different. Showing complete understanding of this interpretation (Big Message) will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian is concerned with defining the Holocaust. He sees a direct connection between Nazi anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, which gave the perpetrators a unique motive for genocide that applied only to the Jews and not to other victims of the Nazis. Whilst victims other than Jews suffered as much as Jews, they were not victims for the same reasons. The interpretation is an explicit rejection of attempts to define the Holocaust as including all victims of Nazi racial violence. L5 answers will illustrate both aspects of the Big Message but show also that they appreciate the historian’s intention to refute other definitions. L4 answers will properly develop only one of the aspects. L3 answers will adequately engage only with sub-messages, such as the idea that support from the majority of German people facilitated the Holocaust, or that the Nazis were anti- Semitic. If a label is attached to this interpretation it can only plausibly be intentionalist. Developed attempts to argue any other label will limit the answer to L3. Glossary: Candidates may use some/all of the following terms: Intentionalism – interpretations which assume that Hitler/the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews from the start. Structuralism - interpretations which argue that it was the nature of the Nazi state that produced genocide. There was no coherent plan but the chaotic competition for Hitler’s approval between different elements of the leadership produced a situation in which genocide could occur. Functionalism is closely related to structuralism. It sees the Holocaust as an unplanned, ad hoc response to wartime developments in Eastern Europe, when Germany conquered areas with large Jewish populations. Candidates may also refer to synthesis interpretations, i.e. interpretations which show characteristics of more than one of the above. What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.

3 Read the extract and then answer the question. If the occasion was solemn, it was rendered even more so by the fact that Secretary of State Marshall – himself a solemn and dignified person – was about to deliver an important message to the country and the world. In it, he would paint a bleak picture of Europe’s economic conditions and would announce that the United States might be prepared to assist the European nations ‘in a return to normal economic health’. But the initiative for drawing up such a programme, he would go on to state, must come from Europe, and the programme itself ‘should be a joint one, agreed to by a number of, if not all, European nations’. Yet even as Marshall rose to the podium at Harvard University on 5 June 1947, the delivery process by which the Marshall Plan was brought into the world had already been under way for some time. Historians have offered us a choice of alternatives in dating the conceptual origins of the Marshall Plan and in identifying those who initially formulated the basic ideas contained in Marshall’s speech. For example, we are told that well before the end of 1946, some State Department officials had already recognised the seriousness of Europe’s economic difficulties and were giving careful consideration to the creation of a European recovery plan. However, the exact point at which the decision-making process leading directly to Marshall’s speech began to take shape cannot, even now, be clearly determined. According to some, the crucial moment came on 21 February 1947, the day the US was officially informed of Great Britain’s inability to continue its military and economic aid to Greece. Others have claimed that it was the frustrating experience of the Moscow Foreign Ministers’ Conference (10 March–24 April 1947) that prompted Secretary Marshall to instruct his staff to study the problems of European reconstruction and prepare a plan for action. But if a precise moment or a single individual responsible for starting the process cannot be identified, the overriding consideration behind the US offer to help Europe can be clearly stated. It was the rapid deterioration of Europe’s economies during the severe winter of 1947 and the American perceptions of the consequences of a West European economic collapse. To say this is, however, to gloss over a number of complex economic and political factors that confronted US policy makers during the first half of 1947 and helped influence their eventual response. First, there was the problem of the deterioration of US–Soviet relations and the threat – real or imagined – of further communist expansion in Europe. Second, Britain faced serious economic difficulties which raised political-strategic implications. Third, Germany was experiencing economic stagnation and the US perceived a need to revive her industries. Fourth, most West European countries were struggling with internal economic dislocations. Fifth, there were forecasts early in 1947 of a coming US recession and a concern that Europe’s lack of money, with which to purchase US exports, would further aggravate the decline in demand. Sixth, many believed that continuing difficulties in Europe would hinder healthy and unrestricted international trade relationships, with long-term adverse consequences for the US economy. Finally, there was the hope that an improvement in Europe’s economic health would promote political stability and lasting peace. All of these, in varying degrees, contributed to the essence of Marshall’s message. The suggested undertaking was to be at once a political and an economic effort – an effort aimed at advancing US foreign policy interests by enabling European countries to pursue specific economic objectives. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Cold War to explain your answer. [40]

Mark scheme: 3 The Origins and Development of the Cold War, 1941–1950 Interpretation/Approach The main interpretation is that the USA did a good thing in offering the Marshall Plan to rebuild European economies, even though he concedes that much of the motivation was self-interested. Showing complete understanding of this interpretation (Big Message) will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian focuses on US motives and writes from an American perspective. Whilst he accepts that some of the motives were selfish, there are enough hints of approval for the interpretation as a whole to be seen as traditional/orthodox in character. Marshall is portrayed as solemn and dignified, and his message is seen as important. It is also possible to detect an anti-Soviet perspective in remarks about Soviet expansion, and the Moscow Foreign Ministers’ conference. Arguing any label other than traditional/orthodox is unlikely to work and will limit the answer to L3. L5 answers will illustrate both how the extract shows the historian’s approval of Marshall’s actions, and how it explains the motives of the USA, to reach a conclusion that understands the historian’s idea that what was good for USA could also be good for Europe. L4 answers will only properly develop one of these aspects. Answers in L3 will only address sub-messages adequately, for example the idea that the USA had been considering a European recovery plan for some time, or that there were many different motives behind the Plan. Glossary: Traditional/Orthodox interpretations of the Cold War were generally produced early after WW2. They blame the Soviet Union and Stalin’s expansionism for the Cold War. Revisionist historians challenged this view and shifted more of the focus onto the United States, generally through an economic approach which stressed the alleged aim of the US to establish its economic dominance over Europe. Post-revisionists moved towards a more balanced view in which elements of blame were attached to both sides. Since the opening of the Soviet archives post-1990 there has been a shift to attributing prime responsibility to Stalin – a post-post- revisionist stance which often seems very close to the traditional view. What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.