Cambridge A Level History 9389 — 2021 May/June Paper 2 · Variant 3

1 France, 1789–1814 (a) Why did the execution of the King fail to end political instability in France? [10] (b) ‘A popular dictator.’ Assess this view of Napoleon. [20]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Why did the execution of the King fail to end political instability in 10 France? Several factors explain why political instability continued in France after the execution. They could include: • Louis left an heir. • There were still many defenders of the Ancien Regime. • There were still major social and economic issues unresolved • The status of the Church was still unresolved. • The revolutionaries were badly split between moderates and radicals. • There was press freedom which encouraged the spread of radical ideas. 1(b) ‘A popular dictator.’ Assess this view of Napoleon. 20 Arguments supporting the statement might discuss the plebiscite which showed the support Napoleon had together with the glory for France he gained with his victories and territorial acquisition. He also brought political, social, and economic stability to France and there was little apparent or real opposition. Even after the crisis of 1814 he was largely welcomed back from Elba. Arguments considering the idea of ‘dictator’ might point to how Napoleon was the decision maker in all matters of policy such as the Concordat and the Civil Code, and in making decisions about peace and war. He also insisted, and got, central control of the regions of France, the system of Prefects, and executed D’Engien. He also imposed censorship and created a police state. In challenging the statement arguments may consider the idea that his regime needed censorship and he ended the freedom of the press. Napoleon also needed an efficient police force and relied on the work of Fouché. The cost and impact of the wars also led to unpopularity, and resentment of both taxation and conscription. The extent to which he was a dictator might be discussed by consideration of how there was broad consent for most of what he did and how he fulfilled most of the middle-class aspirations. Additionally, he took great care to ensure that the worst elements of poverty were eliminated, controlling he price of bread for example, fearing a growing of working-class unrest. He was also largely tolerated by the majority of French people and 1814 events showed his popularity.

2 The Industrial Revolution, c.1800–c.1890 (a) Why was there increased social mobility in this period? [10] (b) To what extent did the lives of the working class improve in this period? Refer to any two countries from Britain, France or Germany in your answer. [20]

Mark scheme: 2(a) Why was there increased social mobility in this period? 10 Several factors explain the increase in social mobility in this period. They could include: • Major changes in rural areas with the decline in status of many peasants into landless labourers and the decline of many cottage industries. • The move from country to towns. • The move from subsistence farming to rural entrepreneurship for some, with concomitant rise in status. • The move from subsistence farming by peasants into urban wage earners. • The decline in aristocratic wealth in influence when compared with middle class growth – the rise of a middle class. • The huge growth in middle class occupations which accompanied industrialisation. • Increased inter-marriage between classes. • The entrepreneur becoming a much more significant economic, social and political figure in society. 2(b) To what extent did the lives of the working class improve in this period? 20 Refer to any two countries from Britain, France or Germany in your answer. Conditions in both varied in all three countries throughout the entire period. Arguably conditions in Britain were exceptionally poor pre-1850 and only slowly improved in the second half of the 19th century when a degree of regulation came in with legislation such as some of the Public Health Acts and the Artisans Dwellings Act began to make an impact and the earlier Factory Acts were updated and better enforced. The legislation to control the hours of women and children made an impact, but there was little to cover the hours of men and conditions in areas such as the coal mines remained appalling and dangerous. What happened to the match girls in London also indicates that things were still very poor for women as well at the end of the century. What Mayhew and Rowntree demonstrated all too clearly was that things had not improved much in Britain throughout the period. Conditions for agricultural workers did not appear to have changed much in the period between the Swing Riots of the 1820s and the Reports of Workhouse inspectors in the early 1900s. In France and Germany there is little evidence of any major change before 1848 and in both cases poor living and working conditions played a significant part in the actual revolutions themselves. In both cases Government post 1848 showed awareness of this fact but were helped by a labour shortage and a rise in real wages in both countries which lowered the chances of further unrest. While the Republican government in France took great care post 1871 to deal with urban unrest by intelligent administration to try and deal with working class grievances, Bismarck, fearing a rise in socialism, also took care to legislate in domestic matters to deal with potential working-class problems with sensible social legislation.

3 The Origins of World War I, 1900–1914 (a) Why did the two Moroccan crises increase tension between the European powers? [10] (b) ‘Germany was not to blame for the outbreak of the war.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 3(a) Why did the two Moroccan crises increase tension between the 10 European powers? Several factors explain why these two crises increased tension in Europe. They could include: Morocco • Germany showed clearly that it was trying to weaken the Entente and challenge France • Germany was anxious to develop commercial interests in an area which it knew the French saw as part of their sphere of interest • The Kaiser’s visit there was designed purely to upset the French. He was successful in this respect and pushed the French even closer to the British. • It further fuelled Anglo-German naval rivalry Agadir • Again, this upset the French in an area which they saw was very much in their sphere of influence • By sending a gunboat in inevitably the French felt threatened • Britain saw it as a threat to a vital sea route – via Suez- to India etc • This further fuelled British fears of growing German naval threat • Germany saw the outcome as a humiliation and German public opinion did a lot to encourage the Kaiser’s belligerence as a result. 3(b) ‘Germany was not to blame for the outbreak of the war.’ How far do you 20 agree? Arguments in favour of the statement might discuss how Germany was not responsible for the assassination in Sarajevo. In fact, it had warned the Austrians to be careful in that area. It was also not directly responsible for the initial Austrian reaction nor for the Russian backing of Serbia and its interests in the Balkans generally. Similarly, Germany was not responsible for the tensions in the Balkan or for the decision by the Tsar to mobilise. Arguments challenging this statement might discuss how Germany’s decision to support the Austrians, the Blank Cheque, was important to encouraging conflict. Additionally, Germany had played an overall part in the increase in tension and it was fully aware that reaction to the Russian mobilisation would bring in the French. Germany had also failed to think through the implications of the Schlieffen Plan and that it could bring in Britain.

4 The Russian Revolution, c.1894–1917 (a) Why did World War One damage the Russian economy? [10] (b) ‘The government’s reforms of 1905 to 1914 largely achieved their aims.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 4(a) Why did World War One damage the Russian economy? 10 • There were no plans made for rapid growth in demand. • The state had limited control over the economy. • There was serious mismanagement and corruption at all levels of the economy. • The economy had been heavily dependent on French finance. • There was hyperinflation as well as acute shortage of all basics. • The rail network was incapable of dealing with the demands of both the civilians and the military. • The mix of a command and a capitalist economy did not work. • Disorganised conscription led to real labour shortages in both the countryside and the factories. • There was a serious shortage of required raw materials. 4(b) ‘The government’s reforms of 1905 to 1914 largely achieved their aims.’ 20 How far do you agree? Arguments in support of the statement might discuss how the Dumas did help towards the survival of the regime by buying off potential middle class/liberal opposition and gave at least the impression of a desire to change. There was also some industrial growth and an increase in employment, while the land reforms indicated a desire to change in areas of fundamental importance – notably to change the status of the peasant (80%+ of the population) and increase food supply. Arguments challenging the statement might consider how the reforms left Russia heavily dependent on French investment. They might also discuss how attitudes and actions towards the Dumas led increasingly to the alienation of the middle class and liberals which was significant in the crisis of 1916/17. Government reform also did not fully deal with the land or peasants’ issues which again led to real problems after 1916. They also failed to modernise the economy sufficiently to enable the state to deal with the demands of war. These failures resulted in the alienation of the Left and a growing radicalism amongst the urban proletariat which, coupled with the many grievances within the army and navy created a challenging environment for the government. The obsession with the ‘Russification’ policy further alienated the ‘subject’ peoples. Section B: American Option: The History of the USA, 1840–1941

5 The Expansion of US Power from the 1840s to the 1930s (a) Why was there disagreement in the United States about joining the League of Nations? [10] (b) ‘The Open Door policy towards China was successful for the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 5(a) Why was there disagreement in the United States about joining the 10 League of Nations? Issues in the United States over joining the League: • Isolationist members of Congress, particularly Republican Senators William Borah and Henry Cabot Lodge refused to bow to Wilson’s lobbying to join the League. • Their biggest problem was with Article X of the League’s Covenant which would effectively commit the United States to defending any member of the League in the event of an attack. • Did not want to give League and other states any control over US armed forces. • These views were reflected in some of the public discussion surrounding the wider Peace Conferences at Versailles. Many recent immigrants felt that the US should no longer be involved in European affairs. • Although it should be said that most Americans felt that it was the duty of the US to be part of the League of Nations. 5(b) ‘The Open Door policy towards China was successful for the United 20 States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.’ How far do you agree? China was not partitioned even though there was increased interest from Japan and European countries. This suggests that the policy of the United States was accepted by other nation states. Additionally, the relationship between China and the USA was strengthened as a result and many US businesses made money in Chinese markets as a result of the access they were given. The United States’ commitment to Chinese independence meant that they were given a special place in some Chinese decisions. However, there was some territorial ‘slicing’ of China in this period - Manchuria came under the control of Russia and, following the Russo- Japanese war of 1904–05, Japan. The United States also accepted Japan’s sphere of influence in a 1909 agreement between the two powers. US- Chinese relations remained tense, mainly because of continuing US restrictions on immigrants from China. In 1905–06, many Chinese took part in a boycott of US goods.

6 Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861–1877 (a) Why, in 1868, was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution passed? [10] (b) How important was the Emancipation Proclamation to the outcome of the Civil War? [20]

Mark scheme: 6(a) Why, in 1868, was the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 10 passed? • The passing of the 14th amendment was a reaction to laws being passed in some Southern states which actively restricted the rights of former slaves. • To be formally admitted to the Union states had to ratify the 14th amendment. • The 14th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship rights to African- Americans, and it states that citizenship cannot be taken from anyone unless someone gives it up or commits perjury during the naturalisation process. • The amendment also had a section which covered the process of election to office after taking part in rebellions and the powers that Congress had to enforce these rules. • The amendment was part of the period of Radical Reconstruction where Congress was trying to exercise its power over the South. 6(b) How important was the Emancipation Proclamation to the outcome of 20 the Civil War? Arguments supporting the importance of the Emancipation Proclamation might consider how it greatly weakened the Confederate war effort by undermining its very social structure. It also ended the hesitancy of Britain – and France – over declaring which side it supported. Now the European powers were clearly on the side of the North, reinforcing the South’s sense of isolation. Additionally, the proclamation strengthened the North’s war effort because the Proclamation gave the North a clear and positive cause to fight for. The war was not just about restoring the status quo; it aimed to change the nature of Southern society. It also allowed the recruitment of ex-slaves in the North into the Union army and navy, providing much needed manpower; over 200 000 were recruited. Southern Democrats had been refusing to compromise, partly in the hope that the North might divide and a peace candidate settle for a compromise peace. Once the Emancipation Proclamation had been declared in 1862–63 and Northern armies were better led and battle-hardened, the South was heading for defeat. As important as the proclamation might have been, it could be argued that the Confederacy was hindered because its devotion to decentralised government, endless checks on executive power and obsession with individual liberty (for whites) and states’ rights undermined the capacity to fight. Perhaps, in the striking phrase of the late historian David Donald, the South ‘died of democracy’. It can also be seen that morale in the South was already flagging by 1863 and there hope of the North ‘giving up’ as the main method of victory was not going to happen. The North also had the advantage of heavy industry and a more advanced economy which had begun to tell by 1863.

7 The Gilded Age and the Progressive Era from the 1870s to the 1920s (a) Why were there concerns about the power of party bosses at the end of the nineteenth century? [10] (b) To what extent was the impact of new immigration in the late nineteenth century positive? [20]

Mark scheme: 7(a) Why were there concerns about the power of party bosses at the end of 10 the nineteenth century? Boss Tweed, New York – late 1860s and 1870s. Tweed’s organisation was known as Tammany Hall: • Tammany Hall politics meant the control of city government by a small group of individuals who conspired to their own material benefit by gaining control of key departments and the money they spent. • It also meant control of local elections as Tammany Hall politicians controlled the registration of electors and the conduct of elections. Therefore, they could be sure that grateful voters would elect their friends, knowing that they would issue contracts which benefited both Tammany members, also known as the Tweed Ring, as well as their voters. • Party bosses were unpopular with progressive reformers because they abused both the electoral process and the conduct of city government and mainly in their own self-interest. [There is a defence of party bosses, that they provided some kind of job security net for the new, usually immigrant voters in fast-growing industrial cities, especially in an era when the concept of an impartial civil service was only just emerging.] Therefore, the main reasons for their unpopularity were political, financial and moral. 7(b) To what extent was the impact of new immigration in the late nineteenth 20 century positive? Arguments supporting the positive impact of new immigration might consider the benefits of immigration which included both a plentiful supply of labour and growing markets for many goods and services. The influx of migrants also brought new skills and new ideas which led to some of the new inventions which speeded industrial growth. Furthermore, there were more opportunities for second and third generations of immigrant families to gain more skilled employment and social status or to move to other regions of the USA. Arguments made to challenge the suggestion that new immigration was positive might include a discussion about the problems included within it - for example overcrowded slum areas of many cities, especially in the industrial north east. This overcrowding led to high mortality rates. The overcrowded slums inhabited by immigrants of different religions and different nationalities also led to racial tensions and conflicts resulting in legislation such as the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Another social problem resulting from mass immigration was that of drunkenness and alcoholism. Therefore, the Anti- Saloon League was formed in 1893. There was also downward pressure on wages and thus living standards of the urban working class. These pressures also weakened the position of labour unions.

8 The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal, from the 1920s to 1941 (a) Why did Hoover lose the 1932 presidential election? [10] (b) To what extent were the reforms of the Second New Deal more radical than those of the First? [20] Section C: International Option International Relations, 1871–1945 Answer both parts of two questions.

Mark scheme: 8(a) Why did Hoover lose the 1932 presidential election? 10 • Underlying issues from the 1920’s and the inadequate policies of previous Republican Presidents. • The poor state of the economy and the inadequate leadership of Hoover. By November 1932, the economy had been in a state of depression for three years and around one in five workers was unemployed. • Hoover was responsible for the army offensive against the Bonus Army camped in Washington DC, which resulted in negative publicity. • Hoover struggled to deal with the downturn in the US economy because of the severity of the downturn and the miscalculations he made. • He was opposed to the more radical solution of federal government taking direct action to address the consequences of the Great Crash. • The strength and vision of Roosevelt was also a factor. When nominated as the Democratic Party candidate in July 1932, Franklin Roosevelt had said ‘I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people’. • Two aspects of Roosevelt’s campaign won him support: his use of the new medium of radio, to which his voice was well suited, and the campaign song ‘Happy Days are Here Again’. 8(b) To what extent were the reforms of the Second New Deal more radical 20 than those of the First? Many commentators suggest that ‘The first New Deal focused on relief and recovery, the second on reform’. Possible discussion points might consider that the First New Deal of 1933–4 included federal action to relieve unemployment such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and Federal Emergency Relief Administration, and economic hardship, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. It also stabilised the banking system and saw the USA leave the gold standard to allow for the inflation of the US economy. Much legislative and executive activity also led to some relief and some recovery, if not a great deal of either. The second New Deal of 1935–8 was more ambitious in its focus on reform as FDR articulated his vision of the future USA in 1934–5. The Social Security Act, introducing old age pensions, was the most radical social reform of the era while the Wagner Act established a new basis for labour relations – even if Roosevelt was not keen on all aspects. The Wealth Tax Act was more symbolic than effective. The Emergency Relief Appropriations Act did much to provide effective work relief in the late 1930s. Section C: International Option: International Relations, 1871–1945

9 International Relations, 1871–1918 (a) Why was Japan in a strong position internationally by 1918? [10] (b) ‘The Kaiser did not expect Britain to join the conflict.’ To what extent does this explain the actions taken by Germany in the July Crisis of 1914? [20]

Mark scheme: 9(a) Why was Japan in a strong position internationally by 1918? 10 Answers may cover longer term factors that put Japan in a good position as well as the immediate circumstances of 1918: • Long term effect of emergence as a ‘world power’ after the Russo- Japanese War. • Membership of Grand Alliance from 1915. • Played a major part in controlling the Pacific and capturing German Colonies. • Sent naval forces to contribute to war effort in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. • Expected significant rewards at the Peace Conference. 9(b) ‘The Kaiser did not expect Britain to join the conflict.’ To what extent 20 does this explain the actions taken by Germany in the July Crisis of 1914? Arguments supporting this statement might consider the view that Britain had little interest in the Balkans and that the Triple Entente was a very loose agreement which Britain was not totally committed to; Britain was not strongly motivated to supporting France and Russia in the event of war. By 1914 Germany had largely abandoned the naval race and therefore was not perhaps seen as a major threat. The Kaiser did not expect Britain to use the Treaty of London from 1839 as a reason for war. However, Britain had supported France over the Moroccan crises so might reasonably be expected to back France in any further conflict with Germany. Other reasons for German actions might include the argument that Austria was Germany’s closest ally and therefore had to be supported. Additionally, Germany expected Austria to act on the ‘blank cheque’ immediately, not wait several weeks allowing other nations to become involved. Germany was also concerned about the military modernisation of Russia and would welcome a limited war to establish their position as the dominant power of Europe. After earlier confrontations in the Balkans Russia might also have been expected to back down when faced with war.

10 International Relations, 1919–1933 (a) Why was Stresemann important in the improvement of international relations during the 1920s? [10] (b) ‘After 1919 the United States returned to a policy of isolationism.’ How accurate is this judgement of United States’ foreign policy in the 1920s? [20]

Mark scheme: 10(a) Why was Stresemann important in the improvement of international 10 relations during the 1920s? • Introduced of new currency (Rentenmark) that stabilised the economy and thus improved international relations linked to the payment of reparations. • Negotiated an end to the Ruhr Crisis and withdrawal of French and Belgian troops. • Helped improve international relations through 3 major actions – agreeing to the Locarno Pact, joining the League of Nations and signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact. • Built a positive relationship with French foreign minister Aristide Briand (joint Nobel Peace Prize winners 1926). 10(b) ‘After 1919 the United States returned to a policy of isolationism.’ How 20 accurate is this judgement of United States Foreign Policy in the 1920’s? Arguments in support of the statement might consider the United States’ failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles (and other treaties with defeated nations) and its refusal to join the League of Nations having been a primary architect in its creation. Additionally, it might be identified that the US was absent from major international conferences, notably Genoa and Locarno. The attitude of US public opinion might also be considered. Evidence of continued involvement might include concern over naval power, particularly the Washington Naval Conference and the attempt to deal with reparations, notably the Dawes Plan (1924) and Young Plan (1929). There was also continued interest in arms reduction, evidenced by the Kellogg Briand Pact (1928), and the growth of international trade.

11 International Relations, 1933–1939 (a) Why did Britain not oppose Hitler’s re-militarisation of the Rhineland in 1936? [10] (b) To what extent was Republican Spain destroyed by outside forces? [20]

Mark scheme: 11(a) Why did Britain not oppose Hitler’s re-militarisation of the Rhineland in 10 1936? • Move seemed reasonable, especially in the light of the failure of the World Disarmament Conference. • The terms of Versailles were seen as too harsh, so some revision was not unreasonable. • Public opinion opposed to possibility of military response. • Britain more interested in improving trade than conflict over the Rhineland. • Lack of military capability. • Fear of Communism – saw Hitler as a potential strong bulwark against the threat of communist expansion 11(b) To what extent was Republican Spain destroyed by outside forces? 20 There are a range of factors that influenced the destruction of Republican Spain. Internal factors could include the division of the armed forces and experience between the two sides. The leadership of Franco was also significant and emphasised the lack of unity in Republican leadership. There were also the divisions within the Republican parties between socialists, communists and anarchists. In contrast to these ideas, external factors that undermined Republican Spain might include Fascist support for the Nationalists, especially the air support provided by the German Condor legions (ref. bombing of Guernica). Soviet support for the Republicans was also quite limited and had varying degrees of positive influence – often Moscow’s influence undermined republican efforts. There was also limited support offered by the international Brigades, together with a general failure of western allies or League of Nations to support the elected government of Spain against an internal rebellion.

12 China and Japan, 1919–1945 (a) Why did the Kuomintang abandon co-operation with the Chinese Communist Party? [10] (b) ‘The military was the main cause of political instability in Japan in the 1930s.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 12(a) Why did the Kuomintang abandon co-operation with the Chinese 10 Communist Party? • Success of the Northern Expedition - Chiang wanted total control (Shanghai massacre). • Concern about popularity of CCP amongst Chinese peasant population. • Threat of Jiangxi Soviet. • Wished to break KMT links to Soviet regime in Moscow. • Power struggle within KMT. 12(b) ‘The military was the main cause of political instability in Japan in 20 the1930s.’ How far do you agree? In support of the statement arguments might identify the military expansionist ambitions of Japan in Manchuria and the military’s responsibility for the Mukden railway incident and subsequent invasion of Manchuria. Additionally, the May 15th incident in 1932 which saw the assassination of PM Inukai by a group of young naval officers. The growing influence of the right-wing League of Blood which favoured a ‘Showa Restoration’ and included several naval officers in its ranks. To challenge this claim arguments might consider the effects of the Great Depression – Japan was heavily dependent on export trade which collapsed after the Wall Street Crash. The limited experience of democratic government might also be identified – ultranationalist groups which portrayed democratic government as un-Japanese, became increasingly popular because of other failures and the corruption and inefficiency of government. Popular support for Emperor also arguably undermined political stability in Japan.