Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2021 May/June Paper 4 · Variant 1

1 Evaluate the reasons why Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister in 1922. [30]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 Evaluate the reasons why Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister in 30 1922. There were many significant reasons as to why Mussolini was appointed in 1922. The discussion could be between the problems in Italy, the leadership qualities of Mussolini, and the relative importance of the elites. Mussolini was appointed because Italy had an indecisive King, and the Prime Minister, Facta, hesitated to act against the Fascists which led to violence, the nation’s fear of Socialists and the aftermath of World War Ⅰ. By the autumn of 1922, he was in contact with major politicians of the formation of a new government, which would include the Fascists. King Victor Emmanuel Ⅱ was a weak man and quite incapable of providing any firm leadership for the country, as he was convinced of his own powerlessness. Most of the King’s family sympathised with the Fascist movement, including his cousin, the Duke of Aosta, and his mother. However, like many of the elite, the King overestimated the strength of the Fascists. The army also gave the King contradictory reports from his generals about the army’s attitude to a Fascist march. The King, on the other hand, is primarily to blame for Mussolini’s appointment, as it was him who sent the telegram offering Mussolini the position of Prime Minister. Facta led a weak Liberal government in February–October 1922 which did very little to impede Fascism’s development. Liberal governments had failed to confront Italy’s internal problems since Unification, and not much had changed by the time Facta was Prime Minister. He was asked to stay on as Prime Minister. He urged the King to grant martial law and allow the army take steps to crush the fascist revolt, but it was too little too late, and no effective stand could be made against the Fascists. Many ex- soldiers joined Mussolini in the Fascist movement. These soldiers were angry about the ‘mutilated victory’ that Italy had suffered at the hands of a Liberal government. The violence of the Fascists was a main factor in Mussolini’s appointment as Prime Minister. Mussolini organised a private army of several hundred Blackshirts who had arms provided for them. This allowed Mussolini to take control politically over central and northern Italy. The Fascists had gained not only the support of industrialists and the elite, but also the Pope. Mussolini gained respect among Italians as he grew more power and developed a good impression. The main reason why Fascism was successful was the fear that the Socialists had created. The leadership qualities of Mussolini, he was a highly talented and recognisable leader. He was also very talented when it came to altering his policies to gain more support form new types of Italians. In 1919, the Fascists primarily appealed to workers, poorer people and socialists whilst alienating other groups of people such as industrialists and religious organisations. Mussolini was also a very gifted speaker, and this was used effectively in propaganda that allowed the movement’s profile to rise considerably. His skill as politician allowed him to exploit the squadristi and boost his respectability and negotiate better with other politicians. 1 Mussolini also recognised the fear of Socialism in Italy and acted upon it quickly. Some argue that the success of the Fascists was purely down to Mussolini as the Socialists were a greater party. It could be argued that Mussolini was appointed by entirely constitutional means by King Victor Emmanuel. A telegram was sent inviting Mussolini to be a member of a coalition government, as the King hoped it would preserve law and order. However, others must share the blame for Mussolini’s appointment, namely Prime Minister, Facta, and his Liberal government. Although it seemed that Mussolini’s appointment as Prime Minister was inevitable, if the King or politicians had acted differently in events leading up to Mussolini’s appointment, it could have been a very different story. In theory, the idea of bringing the Fascists into a coalition government seemed logical, and that it could be used to tame the movement. However, the Fascists were not tamed, and King Victor Emmanuel’s appointment was a miscalculation.

More questions on How did the rise of extremism affect international relations?

2 Assess the extent to which Stalin was successful in ‘building socialism in one country’. [30]

Mark scheme: 2 Assess the extent to which Stalin was successful in ‘building 30 socialism in one country’. This essay requires an explanation of ‘socialism in one country’ and an assessment of how successful Stalin was in building it. There could be consideration of how ‘socialist’ the outcomes of his policies were in political, social, and economic terms. His aims were to focus on the Soviet Union, to strengthen her industrial base and military might before spreading revolution throughout the world. To this end, he rejected the New Economic Policy and introduced Collectivisation in agriculture as a precursor to the Five-Year Plans, which would focus on the development of heavy industry and the Soviet Union’s economic power base. Agriculture was a support service to industry, providing cheap food for the industrial workers and controlling the peasantry, whom Stalin never trusted. Successes and failures of Collectivisation, the famines, human suffering, and the fall in production all need to be examined. The real focus, however, should be on the Five-Year Plans, where Stalin felt that the Soviet Union was fifty to one hundred years behind the West, and must make up this gap in ten years or be crushed. He was very anxious of a Western invasion, and so the First and Second Five Year Plans focused on heavy industry and later chemicals. The consumer sector was disregarded with no attempt to produce a balanced economy. Production increases in iron, steel, and coal production were remarkable, but they came at a huge human cost. The founding of the Stakhanovite movement involved new industrial cities such as Magnitogorsk, the relocation of factories eastward behind the Urals, and the application of military discipline to the work force. The Third Five Year Plan was focused on military production, and despite its achievements, the Soviet Union did need additional supplies from the US during World War Ⅱ. The purges of the officer corps hampered military advances. Ultimately, Stalin had great success in building ‘socialism in one country’ but at massive human cost. It could also be argued that Collectivisation and the nationalisation of the means of production all moved the Soviet Union from the mixed economy of the New Economic Policy to a more socialist economy and society.

More questions on How were the Bolsheviks able to consolidate their power up to 1924?

3 ‘Propaganda was the main reason for the growth of support for Nazism.’ Discuss this view in relation to the period 1929–33. [30]

Mark scheme: 3 ‘Propaganda was the main reason for the growth of support for 30 Nazism’. Discuss this view in relation to the period 1929–33. This question requires an examination and assessment of the role of propaganda and its impact on increasing popularity in the period 1929– 1933, but also an examination of other factors. This includes the Great Depression, rising unemployment, the collapse of the Grand Coalition, the appeal of the Nazis with consideration of Hitler, the role of the Sturmabteilung (SA), fear of the rise in popularity of the communists (KPD), support of Big Business and electoral pacts (Harzburg Front), and left-wing divisions. The electoral success of the 1930 and 1932 Reichstag elections, and Hitler’s performance in the 1932 Presidential Election, demonstrated the increasing popularity. Because more normal politics were rejected, the failures of Bruning, Von Papen, and Von Schleicher increased the popularity of the Nazis. His promises to provide Arbeit und Brot (work and bread), revise the Treaty of Versailles, return Germany to being a great power, regain former German territory, rid Germany of the communist threat and his anti-Semitism appealed to many Germans. He was skilled at tailoring his message to specific audiences, attempting to appeal to both workers and bosses, men and women, old and young, as well as farmers. The Goebbels, Nuremburg rallies, the swastika image, uniforms of the SA, use of his plane to campaign all over Germany, and a simplistic and beguiling message all played important roles in propaganda. Bullock’s summary of propaganda as ‘the greatest demagogue in history’ is apt here. The Nazis benefited from the left-wing, KPD and SPD’s inability to co-operate. The essay must look at the stated factor, other factors and then make a reasoned assessment.

More questions on How did the rise of extremism affect international relations?

4 Analyse the reasons for the formation of a National Government in Britain in 1931. [30]

Mark scheme: 4 Analyse the reasons for the formation of a National Government in 30 Britain in 1931. In 1931, Ramsay MacDonald accepted the King's proposition to form a National Government. In October 1929, after the Wall Street Crash, Britain, along with much of the world, fell into a deep recession. In the aftermath of the crash, the Great Depression ensued which led to the European Banking Crisis (1931) where several Swiss banks went bankrupt. This started a dramatic withdrawal of funds from the Bank of England. The May committee headed by Sir George May, secretary of the Prudential Insurance Company, predicted a budget deficit of £120 million and called for government economies amounting to £96 million, including a major cut (10%) in unemployment benefit. MacDonald and much of his cabinet accepted that cuts were necessary to balance the budget, as they need to secure loans from banks in New York and Paris. This led to a division in the Labour Party as many people opposed the proposed cuts to unemployment benefits because it would affect the most vulnerable members of society and go against everything Labour stood for. On 12th August, the members of the Cabinet Economy Committee, including MacDonald, Henderson, J.H Thomas, and Philip Snowden, met to decide what to do. They agreed to the suggested cuts including a 10% cut to unemployment benefit. This would have taken unemployment back to where it was before Labour's increase in 1929. The cuts that the cabinet agreed to amounted to £38 million. By 19th August, the Cabinet had agreed to cuts of £56 million, although this was still substantially less than what was proposed by the May Committee. These cuts were rejected by the leaders of the other parties as being insufficient. The next day, MacDonald and Snowden met with the TUC leaders, who rejected any cuts that would adversely affect the unemployed. This put considerable pressure on the Labour cabinet. The Bank of England desperately needed loans from New York and Paris, but they would only provide loans if unemployment benefits were drastically reduced. The Conservatives and Liberals accepted this, but MacDonald failed to persuade his colleagues. The proposals represented ‘the negation of everything that the Labour Party stood for’ (L. Butler and H. Jones, Britain in the 20th century). On 23rd August, the Cabinet voted in favour of cuts, but only 11 to 9. Those who opposed included several leading ministers, such as Henderson, Clynes, and Graham. The vote divided the Labour Party, which prompted MacDonald to go to Buckingham Palace to tender his government's resignation. 4 After speaking to the leaders of the other parties – Baldwin for the Conservatives and Herbert Samuel who was standing in for DLG for the Liberals – it was agreed that Ramsay MacDonald would continue as Prime Minister as the head of a new National Government, based on support from all the main political parties. Ramsay MacDonald accepted this proposal as his patriotic duty, although he has been criticised by left-wing historians and Labour ministers for 'betraying the Labour Party'. This benefited the Conservatives and Liberals because it was MacDonald who took all the criticism for the cuts to unemployment benefit. The answer needs to examine the failure of the Labour Government to fund its programmes, the political divisions within the Labour Party, the Conservatives’ willingness under Baldwin to allow MacDonald to continue as Prime Minister of a Conservative government following the 1931 General Election, and the unique sense of crisis in the Great Depression period. Candidates will also need to assess the role of each factor and come to a reasoned judgement.

More questions on What were the causes of the Great Crash and the Great Depression?

5 Assess the impact of the growth of consumerism on the US economy in the later 1940s and 1950s. [30]

Mark scheme: 5 Assess the impact of the growth of consumerism on the US economy 30 in the later 1940s and 1950s. Consumerism encouraged growth of home market, advertising, and services. It encouraged a more diverse home market and affected the balance of trade. However, impact might be compared with larger scale economic factors and impact of military spending and export industries. Consumer industries based on the home were boosted by the expansion of credit – the first credit card arrived in 1950. With the post-war prosperity and full employment together with pent-up demand for domestic goods after the war, there was money available, and the home market expanded. This was accompanied by a growth in population and the expansion of suburbs. There was a rise in social and economic confidence, which helped to fuel the home market, as well as technological developments which brought about a wider range of consumer goods. Investment was available and the consumer boom was helped by the growth of advertising. Consumerism effects could be seen in terms of increased employment in consumer industries and the cascading effect of spending as goods were no longer expected to last for years, but consumers who were happy in the post-war euphoria were eager to buy the latest products. As a result of the allied expansion of the tertiary sector – retail, advertising, credit, and entertainment – the effect on services could be considered. The impact of this factor could be set against strong US overseas trade and the dollar’s position as a reserve currency. Unlike domestic demand, this was directly influenced by US loans and grants such as Marshall Aid. The impact of defence spending as a stimulus for economic growth could be considered, especially with the Korean War and the arms race, as well as the development of the infrastructure, such as roads. The question asks for answers to assess the impact, allowing for comparisons with other developments such as government spending, technology, infrastructure, and overseas trade, as well as a discussion about whether consumerism was more of a consequence than a cause of economic growth.

More questions on What were the consequences of the rapid economic growth after 1870?

6 ‘The Black Power movement achieved little for African Americans in the 1960s and 1970s.’ Evaluate this claim. [30]

Mark scheme: 6 ‘The Black Power movement achieved little for African Americans in 30 the 1960s and 1970s.’ Evaluate this claim. On one hand, it was claimed that the Black Power movement had lost crucial white support, which was a key factor in the Civil Rights Movement’s success. On the other hand, it encouraged greater self-awareness and a determination not to accept changes on the white establishment’s terms. The term ‘Black Power’ initially became popular from the mid-1960s, and its central concept can be defined as African American self-reliance, pride, and the right to self-defence against prevailing racism and violence. It stood against assimilation and reflected a long-standing tradition in the civil rights movement, which was revitalised in the 1950s and 1960s by the emergence of independent African states. Malcolm X, who achieved influence as part of the Nation of Islam movement in the 1950s until breaking away in 1964, was its most influential thinker. His Organization for African American Unity saw African Americans as members of a wider African political and cultural community, emphasising the importance of ending oppression both globally and within the US. Through the influence of SNCC activist Stokely Carmichael, who used the term ‘Black Power’ in 1966, and the Black Panther movement of Bobby Seal and Huey Newton, these ideas became prominent in the mainstream civil rights movement. After 1964, the radicalism and movement away from non-violence integration-based ideals reflected a frustration with the limitations of constitutional and political change. The Black Panthers combined social concerns with self-defence and carrying of weapons from their base in California. They were perceived as threatening and subversive, provoking a determined response from the authorities, changing the dynamic of the civil rights movement and eroding support from the white liberals who admired King and the struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. For more radical African Americans, King had simply reinforced the image of African American suffering. The discussion may include whether the rise in radicalism has prompted the US authorities to be more willing to meet moderate demands to avoid a crisis. There is also a view that the Black Power movement provided the impetus for reform in a variety of areas other than political change, such as the 1972 National Black Political Convention, which discussed progress in social and economic issues and helped to clarify and inform a variety of demands for change. As a result, defenders point to a growth in political awareness and encouragement for African Americans to push for reform. It could be argued that developments, such as Affirmative Action, black feminism, and social justice movements emerged from the more radical direction taken by the Black Power movement. Also, there are arguments for its impact on African American pride and cultural development – as reflected by the celebration of a distinct style of music, writing, art, language, and even cooking – paving the way for multiculturalism. On the other hand, radicalism was thought to have harmed the Civil Rights movement by denigrating the achievements since the 1950s, alienating support, and potentially led to isolation of African Americans. The established leaders, such as Wilkins of the NAACP, saw it was a mirror image of white racism and allowed political leaders to see reform as surrender to extremism.

More questions on How successful was the Progressive Movement from 1890 to 1920?

7 ‘Reaganomics did more harm than good to the US economy.’ Discuss this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 7 ‘Reaganomics did more harm than good to the US economy.’ Discuss 30 this view. On one hand, business confidence grew and enterprise was encouraged. On the other hand, wealth inequality restricted home demand. In theory, Reaganomics was characterised by lower marginal tax rates, including a reduction in federal economic and financial regulation, cuts in government spending, and anti-inflationary monetary policy. It was inspired by supply- side free market economic theory and a desire to avoid the stagflation and general economic decline that had been blamed on Keynesian policies since the early-1970s oil price rises. Claims that the policies were ineffective or actively harmful might consider the effects on welfare benefits and the lack of economic balance when policies aided certain sectors, such as those involved in military technology and defence production, which increased, and those more dependent on general domestic demand, which decreased. The deregulation of finance was also controversial and caused the savings and loans crisis in 1989. It was argued that the gap between the rich and poor increased and the society of the US became more divided. Arguments which stress ‘good’ might point to the effects of the 25% reduction in tax rates in 1981 and the impact on economic recovery. By the end of 1984, GDP increased by 11% and GNP also increased. The fears of inflation did not materialise because of control of the money supply and there was greater economic growth. Supporters pointed to the growth in business confidence and the expansion of the private sector; detractors noted that government spending did not lead to the promised balanced budgets but shifted towards defence spending at the expense of welfare. There were also criticisms that overall wealth increases did not percolate through US society.

More questions on What were the consequences of the rapid economic growth after 1870?

8 Assess the extent to which the US policy of rebuilding the economies of Japan and Western Europe was motivated primarily by ideology. [30] Section C: International history, 1945–92

Mark scheme: 8 Assess the extent to which the US policy of rebuilding the economies 30 of Japan and Western Europe was motivated primarily by ideology. On one hand, post-war policies aimed to prevent spread of communism by restricting the economic hardship that had caused its rise in Russia and China. They could, on the other hand, be described as providing markets, pursuing dollar diplomacy, or establishing strategic control. In the four years following 1948, the European Recovery Program resulted in a $13m dollar US investment into the Western European economies. It was stated that the aim was directed against hunger and poverty in the aftermath of war, not against any country and doctrine. However, as a result of the Truman Doctrine’s political aims and the USSR’s rejection of it, it came to be seen as ideologically motivated. It demonstrated the USA’s huge economic strength, which is based on capitalism and enterprise, and it appeared to link economic hardship with support for communist doctrines. The policy was a change from simply giving aid – the US had already contributed $9 million to investments in infrastructure. This was an indication that a motive was to establish a regenerated western Europe, which would be open to US trade and investment. The USSR saw that its economic aims were linked to growing US influence and economic policy, US power, and the spread of a capitalist ideology. On the other hand, despite the influx of US money, the economies of Western Europe were in need and there was a huge task of rebuilding. The British government, as a major recipient, saw the plan as one of generosity. It may have been motivated by fears that if decisive action were not taken, the economies of western Europe would take 20 years to recover. This would have serious financial consequences for the US, whereas the Marshall Aid programme, by promoting a more rapid and self-generated recovery, would benefit the US economically and reduce defence commitments as Western Europe became more capable of funding its own defence capabilities. The more complex motives for US economic policy may have been distorted by the political and ideological elements of the US as a leader and defender of the Free World. A key element was that the aid would allow Europeans to rebuild and cooperate in integrating western Germany into an economic and political framework that would keep the peace and prevent the US from being drawn into a third Germany-based European conflict. Thus, there is possible discussion about the motivations and the relative importance as ideology as a justification for high levels of overseas spending. 8 The immediate problems of occupation in Japan were far worse than the problems the US encountered in Germany’s shattered cities, and the responsibility of direct rule for providing necessities was significant. Japan was regarded as a vital component of strategic defence, and the US was slower to recognise a distinct communist threat in Asia than in Europe, and the CCP’s victory, followed by the invasion of South Korea, increased the need to ensure that Japan remained stable. The first phase of economic rebuilding was ideologically based in the sense that the US wanted to change the cult of militarism and emperor worship and lead Japan towards constitutional democracy along the lines of its model Asian state, the Philippines. To break the power of the Japanese elites, economic aid was allied to land reforms to deal with immediate problems and a dismantling of larger industrial concerns. After 1947, economic policy shifted to the ‘reverse course’ as the threat from the CCP became more evident, and there was greater concern for infrastructure recovery and larger industrial concerns as Japan became a supply base for the war in Korea. Thus, policy was driven by a different sort of ideology concern, but also by the need to maintain the strategic defence ring in the Pacific.

More questions on Why did the USA emerge as a world power and what was the impact on international

9 ‘Rejection of communist ideology in Eastern Europe brought about the end of the Cold War.’ Assess this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 9 ‘Rejection of communist ideology in Eastern Europe brought about the 30 end of the Cold War.’ Assess this view. Rejection of communist ideology in Eastern Europe certainly contributed to ending the Cold War, but Gorbachev proved to be the enabling factor. He wanted to reform communism, but his reforms caused a revolution driven from below which destroyed the communist system and ended the Soviet Empire and the Cold War due to his refusal to use force. Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika played a major role in ending the Cold War. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union during a period of economic stagnation where he recognised the inefficiency of the communist system. He wanted moderate change, such as with perestroika (economic restructuring) and glasnost (political openness), which he believed would help to restore the legitimacy of the communist party; instead, the public became aware of its shortcomings. Russia was also losing its grip on its satellite states and ethnic groups took the opportunity to free themselves from Soviet control. Gorbachev had failed to realise that communism would be destroyed once factors like nationalism took hold and once people became more aware of economic issues. By the summer of 1989, East Europeans were given more freedom and seized the chance to reject communism. By November, the Berlin Wall had fallen. Eastern Europe’s rejection of communist ideology removed a major obstacle to the ending of the Cold War. Unlike his predecessors, Gorbachev understood that the Soviet Union could never advance economically if it continued to devote 20% of gross national product and 40% of its budget to military spending. He wanted to demilitarise Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to fixing a broken economy. He needed assurances of external security and Ronald Reagan gave him those reassurances. Reagan saw that there was the prospect of changing relations with the Soviet Union. In November 1985, he first met Gorbachev in Geneva to discuss a reduction in nuclear weapons. In 1986, the Chernobyl disaster made Gorbachev realise that nuclear weapons themselves might be the ultimate enemy. Reagan, unknown to Gorbachev, shared the same view of nuclear weapons as immoral. During the 1980s, Reagan initiated the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), an anti-ballistic missile programme that was designed to shoot down nuclear missiles in space. It sought to create a space-based shield that would render nuclear missiles obsolete. At their face-to-face summit of October 1986 in Reykjavik, Reagan suggested that the two sides get rid of nuclear weapons altogether and jointly build an SDI system to guard against a nuclear revival. However, no agreement was reached, but Gorbachev was convinced that Reagan did not intend to make a first strike against the Soviet Union. Further summits took place and finally, in December 1987, they agreed the INF Treaty (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces), the first agreement to reduce nuclear weapons. 9 In 1987, when Reagan visited Berlin, he urged Gorbachev to tear down the 30 Berlin Wall with the words “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. The wall came down 29 months later. When Reagan visited Moscow in 1988, a Russian journalist asked whether he still viewed the Soviet Union as an ‘evil empire’, a remark he had made when assuming office. Regan replied, “No. I was talking about another time, another era”.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

10 Analyse the reasons why France was unable to maintain colonial control in Southeast Asia in the period 1945–54. [30]

Mark scheme: 10 Analyse the reasons why France was unable to maintain colonial 30 control in Southeast Asia in the period 1945–1954. With the surrender of Japan in August 1945, the French were determined to resume their colonial rule in Indochina. By 1954, however, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos had all gained independence from the French, with Vietnam hosting most of the independence struggle. While the French’s weakness was an important factor, other factors such as the defeat of Japan, which provided the opportunity and impetus for Indochina to seek independence, nationalist sentiment, the Viet Minh’s determination, and their victory on the battlefield all contributed to the French losing control. In July 1941, Japanese forces had invaded French Indochina to gain access to its raw materials. In September 1941, the Vichy government agreed to allow a Japanese occupation force into Indochina while remaining the official rulers. However, in March 1945, the Japanese took direct control of Indochina and imprisoned the Vichy French. The Japanese made no attempt to impose direct control over the civilian administration, and they persuaded the Vietnamese emperor, Bao Dai, to cooperate with Japan and declare Vietnam independent from France, but it was independence in name only; the same situation existed in Laos and Cambodia. The defeat of Japan provided the Vietnamese with the opportunity they had been waiting for; it left the French and the Vietnamese competing for control, but the French were weakened by their war efforts. The war had further reinforced nationalist sentiments. Ho Chi Minh formed the Viet Minh in China in May 1941 as a resistance movement and a coalition of nationalist groups seeking independence. In 1943, members of the Viet Minh, led by General Giap, began to infiltrate Vietnam to launch guerrilla operations against the Japanese. With the Japanese defeated and the French weakened, Ho filled the power vacuum; he offered the Vietnamese their independence from all foreign control. The August Revolution was immediately launched by the Viet Minh. The threat of famine in Vietnam united the country behind the Viet Minh under the slogan ‘Vietnam for the Vietnamese’; up to 20% of the population had already starved to death because of Japan’s seizure of their resources. The Viet Minh took control of Hanoi on 17th August 1945, and Saigon and Cochinchina on 25th August 1945. Ho Chi Minh proclaimed Vietnamese independence from France in Hanoi on 2nd September 1945. However, in 1946, Ho accepted a French proposal that allowed Vietnam to exist as an autonomous state within the French Union but fighting broke out when the French tried to re-establish colonial rule. Failure of negotiations led to the First Indochinese War. The French claimed to be fighting an anti- communist war and obtained supplies from the US, which was concerned about the extension of communist influence in the area, but the US did not commit forces to aid the French. The Viet Minh received support from the communist governments of China and the Soviet Union. Vietnam’s fight for independence became part of the Cold War. After seven years of war the French pulled out of the region. On 7th May 1954, the French-held garrison at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam fell after a four-month siege led by Ho Chi Minh. In 1954, the US, France, and the Soviet Union produced the Geneva Accords which required France to grant Indochina complete independence. Vietnam would be temporarily divided along the 17th parallel until July 1956.

More questions on Why was imperialism a significant force in Africa from 1870?

11 ‘The United Nations failed to act impartially to establish peace in the Congo.’ Discuss this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 11 ‘The United Nations failed to act impartially to establish peace in the 30 Congo.’ Discuss this view. Independence was granted on 30th June 1960, following elections in May 1960, with Joseph Kasavubu and Patrice Lumumba becoming President and Prime Minister, respectively. The Eisenhower administration hoped for a stable, pro-Western central government in the Republic of the Congo, but Lumumba was regarded as a communist and anti-Western figure. However, five days after independence, a military mutiny and extensive civil unrest occurred. Belgian paratroopers intervened; Lumumba asked for them to be removed but the Belgians refused. The Congolese government appealed directly to the UN and a resolution was passed on 13th July calling for Belgian withdrawal. The United Nations Organisation in the Congo (ONUC), a peace-keeping force, was established, and soldiers from 30 countries participated for the next four years to protect the Congo from outside interference and to help it in achieving political independence. It can be argued that the United Nations adopted a pro-Western stance. On 11th July, the Province of Katanga had seceded and formed a separate state under Moise Tshombe; it had vast mineral wealth and produced half of the country’s total revenue. Belgian forces remained in Katanga, and on 8th August, a new UN resolution was passed allowing the ONUC soldiers to remove them. Even though Tshombe accepted UN troops replacing Belgian troops, Belgian officers under the direct control of Katanga remained. The UN stated that it could not intervene in a country’s internal matters and refused to end the Katanga secession, blaming Tshombe rather than Belgian involvement. However, Dag Hammarskjold, the UN Secretary General, indicated his support for Tshombe in private statements. Lumumba demanded UN military support from Hammarskjӧld and sought US assistance which was refused. The UN failed to take a firm stance against Belgium, which was against the interests of independence for the Congo. Lumumba turned to the Soviets to reunite Kasai, which had also seceded, with the Congolese Central Government. This increased antagonism from the West because of Cold War hostility. On 14th September, Colonel Mobutu of the Congolese army seized power in a coup; he dismissed Kasavubu and Lumumba with some support from the ONUC military. He also ordered the Soviets out of the country. The UN gave $1 million to unpaid Congolese soldiers and supported Mobutu. 11 In January 1961, Lumumba was moved to Katanga where he was beaten to death by his captors. The US ensured that Cyrille Adoula was elected prime minister and he prioritised reuniting the country. In September 1961, Hammarskjold was replaced by U Thant as UN Secretary General; U Thant was determined to use force. However, in December 1961, the Kitona Accords brought agreement on the reincorporation of Katanga into the Congo. Tshombe refused to act on the agreement and the Kennedy administration decided to use UN force. The UN was in the hands of the Americans by the end of 1962, and they were the only ones who could provide support for the ground forces that finally forced Tshombe to flee in December 1962. In 1964, Tshombe returned as President of a reunited state, but fighting resumed, prompting Belgian troops to intervene once more. In June 1964, the UN left the Congo. In 1965, General Mobutu returned to power with a military coup backed by the Americans and stability returned as a result of brutal repression.

More questions on Why did the League of Nations fail to keep the peace in the 1930s?