Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2021 May/June Paper 1 · Variant 2

This document has 8 pages. Any blank pages are indicated. Cambridge International AS & A Level HISTORY 9489/12 Paper 1 Document Question May/June 2021 1 hour 15 minutes You must answer on the enclosed answer booklet. You will need: Answer booklet (enclosed) INSTRUCTIONS ● Answer one question from one section only. Section A: European option Section B: American option Section C: International option ● Follow the instructions on the front cover of the answer booklet. If you need additional answer paper, ask the invigilator for a continuation booklet. INFORMATION ● The total mark for this paper is 40. ● The number of marks for each question or part question is shown in brackets [ ]. * 2 7 8 6 3 2 3 4 3 5 * DC (CJ/SW) 204311/2 © UCLES 2021 [Turn over

2 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 Answer one question from one section only. Section A: European option Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 1 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A Here is a little word about the crown which the Frankfurt parliament has for sale. Every German nobleman, who bears on his coat of arms a cross or a bar, is a hundred times too good to accept such a crown moulded out of the dirt and dregs of revolution, disloyalty and treason. The old legitimate crown of the German nation, not worn since 1806, is the crown by divine right. This makes he who bears it the highest authority in Germany. Men will obey the crown for conscience sake. That crown one can accept if one feels one has the strength for it, and one’s own duties allow it. That crown, however, no one can grant except the Emperor Francis Joseph, myself, and our equals; and woe to him who accepts it. From Frederick William IV to his friend, the conservative Prussian politician, Joseph von Radowitz, December 1848. Source B To our deep grief the hopes of the German nation, so near fulfilment, seem likely to fail. Though faced by the very great dangers threatening the Fatherland, four German kings, including the Prussian king himself, have declined the formula of mediation which the constitution offered. At the same time, violence has arisen, nothing to do with the proposed constitution, yet threatening one of its most important sections: its central power. A series of decisions have been taken by a new majority in the Assembly, which are impossible to execute and quite contradictory to the course pursued by the earlier majority to which we belonged. In this position of affairs, the National Assembly has only one choice. It can set aside the Imperial Regent who has been the central power, tearing apart the last legal bond between all German governments and peoples, and start a civil war. Alternatively, it can renounce the constitution. The signatories consider the second of these two evils as the lesser for the Fatherland. Declaration signed by sixty-five members of the National Assembly of the Frankfurt parliament submitting their resignations, May 1849.

3 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 [Turn over Source C I could not give an affirmative answer to the Frankfurt parliament’s offer of a crown because the Assembly did not have the right to grant the crown, which it offered me, without the agreement of the German governments. Also, it was offered to me on condition that I accepted a constitution which was incompatible with the rights and security of the German states. I sought in vain to reach an understanding with the National Assembly and exhausted every available means to do so. When the Assembly abandoned their ideas of justice, law and duty by decisions which all honourable men fearlessly opposed, by summoning men to resist us, it broke with Prussia. In loyalty and steadfastness, I, as King, preserve my faith in German unity. However, the hope of seeing it attained through the Frankfurt parliament was destroyed by mindless violence. From a public address by Frederick William IV to his people, 1851. Source D The political horizon, which after the revolution in March 1848 looked so glorious, soon began to darken. In South Germany, a republican uprising took place but was speedily suppressed by force of arms. The bulk of the liberal element did not desire anything beyond the establishment of national unity and a constitutional monarchy on a broad democratic basis. The national parliament at Frankfurt, elected in the spring, showed a dangerous tendency to engage in more-or-less pointless debates. This wasted time which was sorely needed for prompt and decisive action to secure the legitimate results of the revolution against hostile forces. What troubled me most was the visibly and constantly growing power of the reactionary forces and the frittering away of the opportunities to create something real and durable, by the national parliament in Frankfurt and by the assembly in Berlin. From ‘The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz’, 1913. In 1848 Schurz was a student in Prussia and the editor of a newspaper which promoted democratic reform. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Read Sources A and C. How far do these sources agree about Frederick William’s refusal of the German crown? [15] (b) Read all of the sources. ‘The Frankfurt parliament was to blame for the failure of the 1848–49 revolutions.’ How far do the sources support this assertion? [25]

4 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 Section B: American option The origins of the Civil War, 1820–61 2 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A The South wishes to have Texas annexed to the Union. It is a Southern measure. It is for their interest. We of the North are opposed to it. We regard it as a clear violation of the Federal principle. We find no authority for it in the Constitution. We think it would leave us a country not worth living in, a country disgraced throughout in all its parts by the voluntary adoption of the practice of slavery. Does the South pause to inquire whether it is constitutional? Oh, no – they do not condescend to discuss the matter at all. Without the knowledge of the North, they have been separately negotiating for its admission. But Texas will not be admitted into this Union without a struggle, a struggle which will begin peacefully but the end of which is not easy to foresee. From the ‘New York Daily Tribune’, March 1844. Source B We have always concluded that whenever Texas can be annexed without a violation of national faith, it is our duty to annex her. We have endeavoured to show that Texas is necessary to the commerce of the United States. The possession of Texas is important for the protection of the interests of the cotton-growing states. Finally, the whole country is deeply interested in re-obtaining what was once ours. There is one other reason of which we have never lost sight and which is little understood. As the friend of the slave, we desire to see Texas admitted to the Union. If, by the annexation of Texas, we can prevent the smuggling of slaves from the West Indies, what man of feeling can possibly object? From the ‘New York Courier and Enquirer’, November 1844. Source C Now is the time for the opposition to the annexation of Texas to cease. Texas is now ours. Other nations have undertaken to interfere in the question of the reception of Texas into the Union for the avowed object of thwarting our policy, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfilment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent for the free development of our multiplying millions. The view that the annexation has been a measure of military conquest and of territorial expansion is wholly untrue and unjust. It has been so amply refuted that we shall not again dwell on it. No obligation of duty towards Mexico tended in the least degree to restrain our right to bring about the desired recovery of the fair province once our own. From an article by John O’Sullivan, ‘United States Magazine and Democratic Review’, July‒August 1845.

5 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 [Turn over Source D I must repeat the objections I have against this annexation. Firstly, there must be some limit to the extent of our territory, if we are to make our institutions permanent. The government is likely to be endangered by a further enlargement of its already vast surface. Secondly, I have always wished that this country should exhibit to other nations of the earth the example of a great, rich and powerful republic which is not possessed by the spirit of expansionism. Thirdly, I will never be in favour of the admission of other states as slave states. I do not think free states could be called upon to admit further slave states having the unequal advantages arising to them from the mode of apportioning representation under the existing constitution. From a speech to the US Senate by Daniel Webster, Senator for Massachusetts, December 1845. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Read Sources A and B. Compare and contrast the views of New York regarding the annexation of Texas. [15] (b) Read all of the sources. How far do the sources agree that the annexation of Texas would benefit the United States? [25]

6 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 Section C: International option The League of Nations and international relations in the 1930s 3 Read the sources and then answer both parts of the question. Source A The Non-Intervention Committee held a meeting for six and three-quarter hours. Lord Plymouth (Britain) presented documents from the Spanish government alleging breaches of the agreement. Both Signor Grandi (Italy) and Prince Bismarck (Germany) objected to any consideration of the Spanish government’s accusations. Signor Grandi said that the Spanish charges were false and ‘entirely fantastic’. He denied the allegations against Italy, and opened a bitter counter- attack, charging the Soviet government with having violated the agreement. Eventually Signor Grandi suggested a brief official statement to the effect that the Committee had not accepted the allegations of breaches of the agreement and had, therefore, decided to take no action. Several delegates protested against this interpretation of proceedings, and after an angry debate a statement was agreed upon leaving the Committee free to do anything it wanted at any time in the future, or to continue doing nothing. From an account of a meeting of the International Committee of Non-Intervention in Spain, 9 October 1936. This was recorded by a member of a British pressure group committed to non-intervention. Source B It is the duty of every state to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other states, a duty which, for members of the League of Nations, has been recognised in the Covenant. New attempts are being made in the Non-Intervention Committee to make its action more effective, and we recommend that the members of the League represented on the Committee make the non-intervention undertakings as strong as possible, and take appropriate measures to ensure that these are effectively supervised. This is with a view to avoiding the dangers which the present state of affairs in Spain is causing to peace and to good understanding between nations. Draft Resolution of the League of Nations,12 December 1936. Source C To the Secretary-General The statements of the Italian officers and men taken prisoner during the last few days in the Guadalajara sector confirm beyond possibility of denial the presence of regular military units of the Italian army sent to fight on Spanish soil. This is clearly against the provisions of Article 10 of the Covenant whereby ‘the members of the League undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League.’ From these statements it appears that on 6 February, a number of Italian regular troops landed at Cadiz from the Italian steamer Sicilia and other ships. They were subsequently transported to the Guadalajara front to take part in the present offensive. This is being conducted by four regular divisions of the Italian army. The attacking forces are completed by two special brigades, one of German and Italian regular troops and the other of German regular troops. Telegram from the Spanish government to the League of Nations, 13 March 1937.

7 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 Source D A cartoon in the British magazine, Punch, September 1937. Answer both parts of the question with reference to the sources. (a) Read Sources A and C. Compare and contrast these sources as evidence about foreign intervention in Spain. [15] (b) Read all of the sources. ‘There was a genuine commitment to enforcing non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War.’ How far do the sources support this view? [25]

8 9489/12/M/J/21 © UCLES 2021 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 Assessment International Education Copyright Acknowledgements Booklet. This is produced for each series of examinations and is freely available to download at www.cambridgeinternational.org after the live examination series. Cambridge Assessment International Education is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which itself is a department of the University of Cambridge. BLANK PAGE

This document consists of 12 printed pages. © UCLES 2021 [Turn over Cambridge International AS & A Level HISTORY 9489/12 Paper 1 Document Question 12 May/June 2021 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 May/June 2021 series for most Cambridge IGCSE™, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level components.

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 2 of 12 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. 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.

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 3 of 12 Part (a) Generic Levels of Response: Marks Level 4 Makes a developed comparison Makes a developed comparison between the two sources. Explains why points of similarity and difference exist through contextual awareness and/or source evaluation. 12–15 Level 3 Compares views and identifies similarities and differences Compares the views expressed in the two sources, identifying differences and similarities and supporting them with source content. 8–11 Level 2 Compares views and identifies similarities or differences Identifies relevant similarities or differences between the two sources and the response may be one-sided with only one aspect explained. OR Compares views and identifies similarities and differences but these are asserted rather than supported from the sources Identifies relevant similarities and differences between the two sources without supporting evidence from the sources. 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 creditable content. No engagement with source material. 0

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 4 of 12 Part (b) Generic Levels of Response: Marks Level 5 Evaluates the sources to reach a supported judgement Answers are well focused, demonstrating a clear understanding of the sources and the question. Reaches a supported judgement about the extent to which the sources support the statement and weighs the evidence in order to do this. 21–25 Level 4 Using evaluation of the sources to support and/or challenge the statement Demonstrates a clear understanding of how the source content supports and challenges the statement. Evaluates source material in context, this may be through considering the nature, origin and purpose of the sources in relation to the statement. 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. 11–15 Level 2 Uses the sources to support or challenge the statement Makes valid points from the sources to either support the statement or to challenge it. 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 with little or no reference to the sources. 1–5 Level 0 No creditable content. No engagement with source material. 0

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 5 of 12 Question Answer Marks 1(a) Read Sources A and C. How far do these sources agree about Frederick William’s refusal of the German crown? Similarities • Both sources claim that the Parliament had no right to offer the crown. • Both sources refer to other German kings and suggest that they are important in deciding who should wear the crown. • Both make it clear that FW4 had no choice but to turn down the crown. • Both sources imply there is concern about other German states. Differences • Source A is dismissive about the crown, claiming it to be tarnished with the ‘dirt and dregs of revolution’ whereas in Source C the objection to the crown is based on a more legal argument – the lack of a constitution. • Source A implies wearing the crown is a matter of divine right and can only be accepted if the Austro-Hungarian Emperor or his ‘equal’ presents the crown. Source C seems to imply that a deal could have been done if the rights and security of other German states had been accounted for. • Source A suggests flat-out refusal from FW4 whereas Source C suggests that he argued with the Frankfurt Parliament to find a workable solution. Evaluation FW4 believed in divine right and argued that the constitution was not legal. His attitude in Source A is disparaging and different from that seen in Source C. By 1851, alarmed by the reassertion of Austrian control which followed the failure of the 1848‒49 revolutions, he seems to have changed his mind and proposes a German constitution based on that proposed by the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848. Accept any other valid responses. 15

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 6 of 12 Question Answer Marks 1(b) Read all the sources. ‘The Frankfurt Parliament was to blame for the failure of the 1848–49 revolutions’. How far do the sources support this assertion? Support Source A supports as FW blames the parliament and suggests they have the crown ‘for sale’. Source B supports the assertion because the parliament can’t agree. The signatories recognise that the failure to agree the constitution is key. They also refuse to be part of the assembly anymore as they don’t like the direction it is taking. Source C supports the assertion as FW4 claims the Frankfurt Parliament lost its legitimacy by resorting to violence. Source D supports the assertion as it claims the assembly have wasted time, engaged in pointless debates and are responsible for allowing the promise seen in March 1848 to dissipate. Challenge Source A could be argued to challenge the assertion because it is FW4 who is responsible for the failure of the revolution for refusing the crown offered to him by the Frankfurt parliament. Source D also challenges the statement as it recognises that there are reactionary forces at work in Germany. Evaluation / context Source A is FW4s private account (rather than his public proclamation) about his refusal to accept the crown. He is disparaging about the Frankfurt Parliament and reasserts his own belief in divine right. He suggests the Parliament hasn’t the authority to act. Source B is from 65 deputies who left the assembly when they felt it no longer represented what they hoped to achieve. Candidate could set this against their contextual knowledge of the violence which broke out in some German states in 1849. Source C is a public address and FW4 is keen to make sure people understand that he was concerned for German interests and security in turning down the crown. Candidates may be aware of the context of the Erfurt union and the reaction against this from Austria which resulted in the ‘Humiliation of Olmϋtz’. Source D has a vested interest in seeing the revolution succeed and is clearly frustrated about the Parliaments inability to achieve its aim. However, the writer also admits there are other issues which contribute to the failure of the revolution. Accept any other valid responses. 25

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 7 of 12 Question Answer Marks 2(a) Read Sources A and B. Compare and contrast the views of New York regarding the annexation of Texas. Similarities between Sources A and B include: • Both accept that the admission of Texas into the USA is an important issue. • Both agree that the inclusion of Texas would benefit the South. Differences include: • Source A says the annexation will strengthen slavery whereas Source B argues that annexation will weaken slavery. • Source A argues that annexation will benefit only the South whereas Source B argues it will benefit the whole of the USA. Both sources are New York newspapers, the extracts being written during the year when annexation of Texas was a great and controversial political issue. Source B is pro-South, which runs contrary to expectations. Source A conforms more closely to preconceptions about the views of New York. Taken together, the two sources provide reliable evidence of the divisions of opinion in New York. Source A conveys more accurately the controversy surrounding Texas. Source B is more optimistic, perhaps unrealistically so if its final argument is anything to go by. Accept any other valid responses. 15

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 8 of 12 Question Answer Marks 2(b) Read all the sources. How far do the sources agree that the annexation of Texas would benefit the United States? Source A strongly challenges this assertion. It argues that annexation would benefit only the South. It would also shame the United States by allowing the expansion of slavery. Source B supports the assertion. It sees Texas as necessary to the commerce of the United States and not just the interests of the South. If anything, the source argues that annexing Texas will harm slavery because it will prevent slaves being imported from the West Indies. [This is because from 1808, the USA had banned the import of slaves. The Republic of Texas, however, allowed the slave trade, both external and internal. If Texas joined the USA, the external slave trade would be prohibited.]. Source C also supports the assertion. It argues that annexing Texas will help the USA fulfil its ‘manifest destiny to overspread the whole continent’. This means the USA can occupy the whole of North America, including Texas. Source C includes the phrase ‘manifest destiny’, the first public use of a term which became a key principle of American values, justifying territorial expansion, which Source C actually asserts is not the case. Thus, Source C also contradicts itself and in doing so weakens its reliability. Source D strongly challenges the assertion. It argues that the USA would not benefit from annexing Texas. Allowing a slave state to join the USA would destabilise its government and damage its international reputation. Source A is taken from a New York newspaper and is likely to reflect the views of many, even most of those in the North. It is a partisan source, suspicious of both Texans and Southerners. Thus it is less than reliable. Source B is published in a New York newspaper, one which shows a greater concern for the commerce of the whole of the USA. It claims to be ‘the friend of the slave’ and yet says that the annexation of Texas will protect the cotton-growing sates of the South, which rely on slaves to grow their cotton, thus showing a basic confusion, which undermines its reliability. Source C includes the phrase ‘manifest destiny’, the first public use of a term which became a key principle of American values, justifying territorial expansion, which Source C actually asserts is not the case. Thus, Source C also contradicts itself and in doing so weakens its reliability. 25

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 9 of 12 Question Answer Marks 2(b) Source D comes from a public speech by a leading Northern politician. He would be expected to oppose the expansion of slavery within the USA which followed the annexation of Texas. On this basis, Source D comes as no surprise as a partisan and thus unreliable statement of Northern views. However, Webster was a leader of a section of the Whig party labelled the Cotton Whigs because they were sympathetic to the interests of the South. In 1850 he urged the North to support the Fugitive Slave Act. In this respect, Source D comes as a surprise. Note: Candidates are not expected to know that Webster was a Cotton Whig. Accept any other valid responses.

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 10 of 12 Question Answer Marks 3(a) Compare and contrast Sources A and C as evidence about foreign intervention in Spain. Indicative content Differences between Source A and Source C include: • In Source A, the Italian denies breaches of the non-intervention agreement while Source C gives details of Italian troops fighting in Spain. • The sources disagree about which nations are intervening. Source A mentions the Italians’ counter accusation against the Soviet Union, while the Spanish government in Source C specifies Italians and Germans. Similarities include: • In both sources, the Spanish government is calling attention to German and Italian activity in Spain. • The Spanish allegations in Source A are backed up by the detailed evidence in Source C. • The Italian denials of Source A are referenced in Source C (‘beyond possibility of denial’). Signor Grandi in Source A is clearly not reliable, as he has strong motives to minimise the Italian support for the Nationalists, which he does through a combination of counter-accusation and denial. He puts pressure on the Committee of Non-Intervention to endorse his view. The Spanish accusations seem more reliable, because of their persistence in asking for some scrutiny, and because of the level of detail supplied in Source C. We also know Mussolini sent large numbers of troops to Spain in 1936–7. However, the Spanish government is of course motivated to protest against interventions on the side of their enemies, and not to mention the aid they were receiving from the Soviet Union. Accept any other valid responses. 15

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 11 of 12 Question Answer Marks 3(b) Read all the sources. ‘There was a genuine commitment to enforcing non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War’. How far do all the sources support this view? Source A can be used on both sides of the argument • Source A challenges the view, as the group monitoring the Committee of Non-Intervention of Spain is not impressed by the co- operation of the delegates with any enquiry (the Germans and Italians ‘objected to any consideration’), their standards of behaviour (‘an angry debate’), or the effectiveness of the Committee (‘to continue doing nothing’). • Source A supports to some extent, as it shows a committee had been created to attempt to enforce non-intervention, that its meetings were lengthy and detailed, and that delegates from the major powers were present and that some protested about the Italian interpretation. Source B supports the view as the League is reminding the international community of its commitments under the Covenant not to become involved and urges the Committee to make its ‘non-intervention undertakings as stringent as possible’. Source C can be used on both sides of the argument • Source C challenges the view in terms of the failure to prevent the presence of considerable numbers of Italian and German troops in Spain. • Source C supports the view to a limited extent, in that the Spanish government is appealing to the League, clearly in the hope that the commitment was genuine. Source D challenges the view for the most part. Non-intervention is shown as a drama in which the fascist leaders refuse even to participate. Britain and France are seen by the British cartoonist as more committed – ‘the show must go on’, but the language of theatre suggests that this is largely for show, which reflects a sceptical attitude to a genuine commitment. Source A is a critical view of the work of the Committee, by a group (British Union of Democratic Control) which supported its aims but sounds increasingly despairing about its lack of effectiveness. It is a record compiled by an observer who was present at the meetings, and whose views are echoed by Source D. Source B is an official document from the League. It indicates the intention to strengthen non-intervention, and shows awareness of the dangers. However, in common with other resolutions of the League at this time, there is no clear means or timetable of implementation. Germany and Japan had left the League by this time whilst Italy was no longer taking a full role. So, it was increasingly ineffective. 25

9489/12 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2021 © UCLES 2021 Page 12 of 12 Question Answer Marks 3(b) Source C shows the efforts of the Spanish government to document and communicate breaches of the policy, in the hope of gaining more active support in maintaining non-intervention. The quotation of article 10 of the covenant, which was also referred to in Source B, is meant to underline the justice of their complaint. Spanish Republicans are clearly trying to put pressure on the international community here. In Source D the intention to criticise hypocrisy is evident, even though the portrayal of Britain and France is more positive than that of their opponents here. John Bull is a traditional personification, reflecting a British view of themselves as honest and uncomplicated. Both the refusal of Germany and Italy to engage with the aims, and the ineffectiveness of British attempts to manage this, can be cross-referenced to Source A. Overall, the sources show there was little genuine commitment to non- intervention, as, while there is some official backing for the policy indicated in all the sources, this is shown to be lacking in strength in Sources A, C and D. Accept any other valid responses.