Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2022 Oct/Nov Paper 4 · Variant 3

1 Assess the success of Italian foreign policy in the period 1922–41. [30]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 Assess the success of Italian foreign policy in the period 1922–41 30 Indicative content Given the criticisms of the liberal governments after 1918 for showing weakness in securing Italian gains in the peace settlement and in having to hand back Fiume to the new Yugoslavia after the d’Annunzio occupation, a key aim of foreign policy after 1922 was to restore prestige, extend territory and make Italy a more important player in world affairs. In the 1920s it could be argued there was a degree of success. However, when Mussolini embarked on a more ideologically driven and expansionist policy in the 1930s this was more problematic. Success criteria should be established and in the 1920s the stated aims of making Italy more respected feared and influential were achieved. Compensation was gained from Greece after the bombardment of Corfu. Fiume was gained from Yugoslavia. Italy was involved in key European discussions at Locarno and was being seen as a major European power. Right up to the Stresa Front, Mussolini was seen by Britain and France as a key stabilising influence in protecting the status quo in Austria. Italy’s influence over Austria and the Balkans had grown. Mussolini prevented the Anschluss with Germany in 1934 by a decisive action not shown by other powers. This influence continued into the late 30s when Italy played an important role in Munich and in 1940 some in the British cabinet wished to use him as a way to establish a peace. However, the invasion of Ethiopia put a rift between Italy and Britain and France and drove Mussolini into closer ties with Hitler. Greater ideologically based policies led to a costly and not very productive intervention in the Spanish Civil War with the somewhat humiliation treatment of submarine activity in the Mediterranean being curtailed by the other powers at Nyon. There was the success of colonisation in Ethiopia but to the detriment of Italy’s reputation and with somewhat doubtful gains in terms of resources. Italian forces did not distinguish themselves in war but new land was gained again in Albania and from France in 1940. The cost however was to be shackled to Germany and the bill had to be paid by entry into the war and subsequent humiliating defeat in North Africa and Greece and costly and unpopular participation in the invasion of the Soviet Union. By 1941 Italy was no longer respected or greatly feared and had become inextricably involved in a war that was to topple the regime and led to considerable death and destruction and to the loss of the lands gained since 1922.

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

2 ‘Stalin’s fear of opposition was the main cause of the Great Terror.’ Discuss this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 2 ‘Stalin’s fear of opposition was the main cause of the Great Terror.’ 30 Discuss this view. Indicative content The massive campaign of terror has been seen as a result of the suspicions of Stalin. Increasingly isolated after the death of his wife, he has been seen as a paranoid dictator aware of previous jealousies and opposition within the party and determined to rid himself of any potential rival and to surround himself with sycophants and even purging his most enthusiastic hangmen like Yezhov. Previous groups within the party like those who admired Bukharin were destroyed as were those close to Lenin. A potential rival, Kirov, was murdered suspiciously. Even those like Molotov close to Stalin were kept in check by control of family members; Stalin personally oversaw lists of arrests. Another view was this was more than fear but a delight in the wielding of personal power. The all-knowing leader could be seen as the expert in every field because of the fear generated for those who might be critical and the cult of Stalin which was an essential element for ruling could be maintained. In this analysis the goals of power and the means to achieve them are more emphasised than fear. The transformation caused by economic policies of peasant collectivization and industrialization were seen as essential for the defence of the Soviet Union and its development as a Communist state. There could be an element of fear of opposition – peasant unrest was widespread after 1928 and there was always the danger in a time of disruptive change that old nationalism such as that in the Ukraine might surface. There was also the danger of foreign intervention, especially with the German resurgence. However, though enemies were often accused of being spies for foreign nations and richer peasants categorised as class enemies, the actual fear from opposition as opposed to a determination to crush any block to a second transformative revolution may be questioned. There is also an explanation which sees the Great Terror having a strong element of impetus from below. Party enthusiasts had been unhappy about the compromises of NEP. Within the Party there was a strong belief in terror as policy. The vision of a more developed socialist economy and state was very strong and activists often urged terror as a means of driving this quickly, The model of a top down terror has been challenged but the main debate may be between explanation which stress fear at the very top and those which see terror more as a means to an end – whether driven by Stalin’s vision and linked to his cult of personality or more widely shared by the Party.

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

3 Evaluate the success of Nazi policies towards the Christian churches. [30]

Mark scheme: 3 Evaluate the success of Nazi policies towards the Christian churches. 30 Indicative content Much depends on how the aims are seen. One aim was to neutralise any opposition from the churches, particularly the Catholic church as its political Zentrum party was needed for support for the Enabling Law and then was dissolved with the other parties. The tradition of cooperation with the state by the Evangelical church made it less pressing, but a general aim was the coordination of organizations in the Reich. The Concordat was a short-term success in gaining the acceptance of the hierarchy for the dictatorship. The emphasis on ending the Communist threat was successful and the demise of the Catholic political party was accepted. The Evangelical church was divided by the attempt to form a separate church – the German Christians. Again, political opposition to the dictatorship was contained. In a wider aim of ending all alternative allegiances to the Nazi movement and eroding values in Christianity which went counter to the ideology of racial violence, expansionist war and unrestrained force to achieve ends untainted by compassion, there was more variable success. Despite campaigns against Christianity, there was continued allegiance to religion and local Nazi reports refer to clashes of loyalty. While utmost war could be waged against the Jews, more care had to be taken with Christians. The open criticism of Archbishop Galen against euthanasia had to be accepted – Goebbels hoped for a reckoning in the future, but the programme was officially ended – or disguised – marking an unusual victory for opposition, however limited. The German Christian movement was not successful in dominating protestant religion and critics emerged here, too, though often like Niemoller they were suppressed. The need for unity in the war meant that the wider aims for suppressing religion and ensuring that any spiritual life was conducted through the Nazi ideology were not implemented. Army chaplains were important and religion was needed when civilian suffering increased through allied bombing and heavy casualties in the East. The state never achieved the suppression of religious institutions and an alternative value system surfaced in many acts of dissent – most famously the White Rose – but also in individual acts of kindness towards Jews or foreign labourers. Some groups notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses would not conform and suffered persecution.

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

4 ‘Britain had largely recovered from the effects of the Great Depression by 1939.’ Discuss this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 4 ‘Britain had largely recovered from the effects of the Great Depression 30 by 1939.’ Discuss this view. Indicative content One view is that the British economy in the 1930s went through a process of change and development so that the worst elements of the Great Depression which had caused particular problems in the 1930–32 period gave way to greater prosperity. Certainly GDP growth was encouraging. It had fallen below 1929 levels had reached by 1939 some 35% higher and growth showed an upward trend. Unemployment which had stood at some 23% of the work force in 1932 had fallen to 9% by 1939. The fall in prices which had characterised the deflationary years of the early 1930s had changed to a modest rise which stimulated key areas which were still reliant more on internal demand as overseas trade suffered from the autarchic tendencies in world economic policies. The recovery was aided by large scale defence spending which acted as stimulus to industries which had suffered since the end of the First World War. Agriculture was helped by government policies which maintained prices by restricting and controlling marketing and by this price rise and by an increase in domestic demand. This positive view is qualified by a persistent unemployment level albeit more evident in some areas and sectors than others. London and the South East had higher employment levels through the 1930s than areas of traditional industry and Scotland and Wales in particular. Also, the recovery was slower in staple industries than in newer industries such as transport and electrical engineering which had only a 4% unemployment rate overall by 1939. Higher levels of over 20% persisted in some regions and some industries. Another issue is the return of economic cycles and the effects of the 1937 recession which were still visible through 1938 and into the early part of 1939 in some areas. Real GDP had fallen quite dramatically in 1938 and by 1939 was lower than it had been in 1936. There was a spike in unemployment caused by the recession as most economic sectors were affected. Looked at in the light of this return to some of the problems of 1932 it has been argued that the economy of 1939 was still vulnerable to cyclic fluctuation. Unemployment lingered until the war economy was in fuller operation by 1940. The demands of rearmament, especially in the post- Munich period war had an effect on the structural changes that were still causing economic problems. The view in the quotation is dependent on an interpretation of ‘largely’ but is tenable. Qualifications can be made about employment, exports, some depressed areas and the overall vulnerability to cyclic fluctuation.

More questions on What was the impact of the Great Crash and the Great Depression in the United States?

5 Assess the impact of full employment on the economy in the late 1940s and 1950s. [30]

Mark scheme: 5 Assess the impact of full employment on the economy in the late 30 1940s and 1950s. Indicative content The impact of Full Employment on all aspects of the economy, consumerism, production should be covered. Driven by growing consumer demand, as well as the continuing expansion of military spending as the Cold War ramped up, the United States reached new heights of prosperity in the years after World War II. Gross national product (GNP), which measured all goods and services produced, grew to $300 billion by 1950, compared to just $200 billion in 1940. By 1960, it had topped $500 billion, firmly establishing the United States as the richest and most powerful nation in the world. The Full Employment legislation of 1946 committed the Federal Government to taking measures to prevent the large- scale unemployment of the Depression years and though it achieved this without large scale inflation until the 1970s this was in the context of industrial growth brought about by high levels of military spending and production to meet the pent-up demand of consumers after the war years had meant large amounts of accumulated saving. Full employment helped to develop the consumer society of the 1950s, with increasing numbers of Americans becoming able to purchase cars, televisions, refrigerators, washing machines etc. The growing use of cars in turn helped to drive demand for service industries and contributed to the growth in employment in these areas of the economy. The increase in car use led to a growing number of motels, fast-food outlets and shopping malls. The consumer society helped to make the economy more dependent on service industries. Demand for consumer products in turn led to increasing levels of production. There were 7.9 million cars produced in 1955 alone. The construction boom saw 13 million new homes built between 1948 and 1958, mostly in suburbs. The discussion here is between a view that it was market and consumer led factors arising from full employment which promoted growth or whether the growth, encouraged by other factors such as government policy, public spending and the accumulated demand led to full employment.

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

6 Assess the significance of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for African Americans. [30]

Mark scheme: 6 Assess the significance of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for African 30 Americans. Indicative content The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation in public places and made employment discrimination illegal. Johnson saw the 1964 act as doing more for Civil Rights than anything in the previous hundred years and Southern resistance was broken down in the backlash from Kennedy’s assassination and in the teeth of Southern Democrat opposition. King spoke of a ‘second emancipation’ The Act banned segregation in all places of public accommodation – courthouses, parks, restaurants, theatres, sports grounds, hotels. It also barred employment discrimination and set up an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Federal funding for any programme which involved discrimination was prohibited. The Office of Education was to assist with school desegregation. Unequal application of voting requirements was forbidden – something strengthened in a separate act of 1965. Subsequent legislation in 1968 banned discrimination in the sale, renting or financing of property. The Act met many of the demands of Civil Rights campaign in the ending of legal discrimination and fulfilled Kennedy’s plan. It showed African Americans that the resistance of white Southern Democrats could be broken down and it was the most significant advance in legal changes since the Reconstruction period. However, racial tensions did not disappear overnight, and Johnson was disappointed by the Watts riots and the wave of unrest. Political radicalism, too, did not end with the growth of Black Power. The hostility of local police authorities and the big gap between white and black prison numbers continued, Economic inequality and discrimination in employment and representation in the media and professions continued to be issues for concern. The disproportionate losses of black GIs in Vietnam highlighted ongoing inequality and the gap between ending legal segregation and achieving proportionate representation of black Americans in public office, professions and higher earning jobs and positions of power and status remained. So, the Act in terms of what went before could be seen as one of huge significance and it could be seen as laying the basis for change. However, there is a debate about the degree of social and economic change that the legislation brought about and how far it resolved racial issues.

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

7 Assess the political importance of the Rainbow Coalition in the 1980s. [30]

Mark scheme: 7 Assess the political importance of the Rainbow Coalition in the 1980s 30 Indicative content Traditional black leadership seemed to have been ineffective in defending the interests of many poor black and Hispanic Americans and Reagan’s policies seemed to be opening up a gap between rich and poor generally. It was this that prompted Jackson to launch the Rainbow Coalition – the ‘coalition of the rejected’ to link ethic groups with poorer whites and radical movements calling for gender equality. The limited response of the Democrats towards social and economic equality was the target and though initially Jackson did not put himself forward as a candidate, he was urged to stand by his followers and made this official in 1983. The Rainbow Coalition challenged the Democrats to offer a firmer alterative to Reagan but was seen as unrealistic and a safe choice was Walter Mondale who seemed to stand a chance of being elected as opposed to getting protest votes and alienating moderates. This view as shared by leading black Democrats. But Jackson won 3 million votes in the Primaries and spoke directly to many disadvantaged voters. Jackson needed the organisation of radical black movements like the Nation of Islam but that reduced real chance of success and he was involved in anti-Semitic slurs which discredited him and led to Mondale’s endorsement his popularity remained significant. By 1988 the Rainbow coalition had become much less radical and controversial and more in the mainstream of Civil Rights campaigns and of Democratic policies, opposing intervention in the Iran Iraq war, showing concern over drugs and Palestinian violence. However, he still spoke out for greater economic equality and still got considerable mass support from poorer voters. But by 1988 he had more links with mainstream Democrats. While not winning the nomination, Jackson did create a new coalition of interests in the Democratic party and did offer a voice to those for whom the prosperity of the Reagan era did not touch and who were disappointed with the results of Civil Rights movements which had focused more on political than social and economic equality. Left wing critics saw the Coalition as opportunist and blamed Jackson for selling out to the mainstream. More sympathetic studies found it offered a new momentum in politics and linked social and economic discontent to a political solution rather than more violent and revolutionary alternatives, having a major impact on the Democrats in the long term and helping to promote change.

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

Section C: International history, 1945–92

Mark scheme: 8 Evaluate the factors which influenced US relations with China in the 30 period 1950–63. Indicative content The shock of the Communist victory in 1949 saw ideological concerns that Communism worldwide was spreading and the danger that it would spread to Asia, hitherto not a major US concern. The Korean War reinforced these ideological concerns and took Containment as a policy to Asia. Chinese involvement transformed the war and led to a determination to prevent further expansion even at the expense of supporting a repressive and authoritarian regime. This in turn convinced China that the United States was putting its strategic and economic interests before any real commitment to democracy. The United States’ support for an independent Taiwan was a major factor which prevented any improvement in US-China relations, made worse by the United States recognising the government in Taiwan as the official government of China. There was less attempt to improve relations with China than the Soviet Union – Mao remained in power unlike Stalin and there was limited opportunity for a thaw in relations. Chinese internal repression and what it saw as a bizarre and costly economic experiment in 1958, together with the false dawn of the 100 Flowers Movement, made the United States unsympathetic to China. The United States’ military superiority and alliances in Asia made it less imperative to try to achieve better relations than the arms race with the Soviet Union and the danger of nuclear war. The situation in Vietnam made it seem imperative to go on providing support for regimes opposed to Communist expansion. Discussion could focus on the relative importance of ideological and political differences and strategic factors with the need for the United States to protect key allies and its influence in the region and its trade and investment interests.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

9 ‘Gorbachev ended the Cold War by causing the collapse of the Soviet system.’ Assess this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 9 ‘Gorbachev ended the Cold War by causing the collapse of the Soviet 30 system.’ Assess this view. Indicative content Mikhail Gorbachev’s announcement of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and his resignation on Christmas day 1991 effectively confirmed the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev had wished to retain the integrity of the Soviet Union but in December 1991, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia declared independence and the Soviet Union was dissolved. It broke into 15 independent republics, making the United States the sole global superpower. It was Gorbachev who created the circumstances that enabled the collapse to happen so rapidly. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 during a period of economic stagnation; he saw the inefficiency of the communist system. He wanted moderate change with perestroika and glasnost to restore the legitimacy of the communist party; instead the public became aware of its shortcomings. The Soviet Union was also losing its grip on its satellite states and ethnic groups sought to free themselves from Soviet control. Gorbachev did not realise that communism would be destroyed once factors like nationalism took hold and people became more aware of economic issues. By the summer of 1989, East Europeans had more freedom and they rejected 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. Gorbachev was responsible for the loosening of governmental power which created a domino effect in which Eastern European alliances began to crumble, inspiring countries such as Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia to declare their independence. He wanted to reform communism but his reforms caused a revolution driven from below which, because of his refusal to use force, destroyed the communist system, ended the Soviet Empire and the Cold War. When Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he inherited economic stagnation. His predecessor, Brezhnev, had used profits from the boom in the oil industry on the arms race with the United States rather than taken the opportunity to raise living standards. The Soviet defence budget had begun to undermine other aspects of Soviet society such as healthcare. Liberal ideas had been spreading and Western economic success was clearly visible. Belief in communist ideology was declining and Soviet actions in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Poland in 1981 led to a loss of faith in the system. Gorbachev may have hastened the events that ended the Cold War but it could be argued that they would have happened eventually. 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 them to him. Reagan saw that there was the prospect of changing relations with the Soviet Union. He first met Gorbachev in Geneva in November 1985 to discuss a reduction in nuclear weapons. Reagan, unknown to Gorbachev, shared his view of nuclear weapons and believed them to be immoral. Gorbachev was convinced that Reagan did not intend to make a first strike against the Soviet Union. 9 Finally, in December 1987, they agreed the INF Treaty, the first agreement on actually reducing nuclear weapons. He believed in co-operation and in holding only a minimal number of nuclear weapons for protection. He also believed that Soviet control over an empire in Eastern Europe was costing too much and that the invasion of Afghanistan had been a costly disaster. He was responsible for the loosening of governmental power which created a domino effect in which Eastern European alliances began to crumble, inspiring countries such as Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia to declare their independence.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

10 Analyse the reasons why the division of Korea led to war in 1950. [30]

Mark scheme: 10 Analyse the reasons why the division of Korea led to war in 1950. 30 Indicative content At the end of the Second World War, when Korea was freed from Japanese occupation, the Potsdam Conference decided it should be divided along the 38th parallel. US forces took over control of South Korea which would last for the following 3 years. They celebrated this occasion with Soviet forces at the 38th parallel but they were no longer allies as the two ideologies of communism and capitalism clashed. The Moscow Conference of 1945 agreed that the rival US and Soviet military commands would set up a Joint Commission to make recommendations for a single free government in Korea but they could not reach an agreement. In September 1947, the United States handed over the governing of the Korean peninsula to the United Nations. After the North’s objections, the UN decided that only South Korea should hold elections. On 15 August 1948, the Republic of Korea was established. Syngman Rhee, the President, was determined to reunite Korea; he pursued strong anti-Communist policies. Soviet occupying forces formed a provisional government for northern Korea and Kim Il Sung became premier of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Kim wanted to unite Korea under communist rule. By June 1949, both Soviet and American troops had withdrawn from Korea. US interest in South Korea appeared to be faltering. In a speech in January 1950, Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, omitted the country from a list of Pacific Rim states vital to US defence interests. His Perimeter Speech defined the American ‘defensive perimeter’ in the Pacific as a line running through Japan, the Ryukyus, and the Philippines. This excluded US military protection to the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China on Taiwan. Acheson was criticised for giving Pyongyang the belief that it could pursue forcible reunification, believing that the United States had ruled out military intervention to defend South Korea. Meanwhile, in South Korea, President Syngman Rhee had unleashed a brutal campaign against suspected communists. This encouraged the North to use force against the South. Stalin cautiously supported Kim’s invasion plan, dependent on endorsement by Mao Zedong which Kim received. Stalin was concerned about the military weakness of the North and the possibility of American intervention but by January 1950 he had changed his mind. A war in Asia would draw attention away from Eastern Europe especially after the failure of the Berlin Blockade in 1948. Syngman Rhee also lacked domestic support in South Korea and Kim was convinced that he could win. Stalin also wanted to preserve Soviet strategic interests in the Far East and to prevent US influence in the region. The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance, signed in February 1950, meant that the balance of power in Asia had changed from the United States to the Soviet Union. However, Stalin also feared that China could challenge the Soviet Union’s dominant position in the international Communist movement. Stalin wanted both to unify the Korean peninsula and to keep China under Soviet influence; the Korean operation seemed a perfect means of achieving both ends. He believed that the outbreak of the Korean War would prevent China from attacking Taiwan and would place 10 China’s military at the service of Soviet strategy. Stalin had to ensure that China would actively support North Korea before he approved Kim’s invasion plans. The war was triggered when, in 1950, Syngman Rhee boasted that he was going to attack North Korea. This provided the excuse for the North Koreans to invade South Korea.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

11 ‘The United Nations failed in Somalia because it underestimated the scale of its task.’ Assess this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 11 ‘The United Nations failed in Somalia because it underestimated the 30 scale of its task.’ Assess this view. Indicative content The events that led to the 1992 intervention in Somalia began in 1991 when dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in a military coup staged by a coalition of opposition warlords, one of most powerful being Muhammed Farah Aidid. The warlords soon began fighting among themselves. The conflict led to the destruction of the country’s agriculture and by autumn of 1991, the UN estimated that 4.5 million Somalis were on the brink of starving to death. The UN intervened to provide humanitarian aid; the warring factions agreed to a cease-fire. On 24 April 1992 under Resolution 751, the UN Security Council established a UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM). Operation Provide Relief began in August 1992; US military transport would support the UN relief effort in Somalia. Intense fighting between the warlords impeded the delivery of aid to the needy and the UN contemplated stronger action. Its main purpose was to allow the delivery of emergency assistance to a civilian population; it was not expected to use force. The mission could use weapons only in self-defence. This proved to be the biggest stumbling block. UN forces were faced by irregular forces and insurgents rather than regular armies. There were no ambitious efforts by the UN during this phase to impose peace in Somalia. It failed because of this and also because of resistance from the Somalis. In a country like Somalia with many factional leaders, it proved too difficult to obtain consent for the operation. The cease-fire agreement involved only the two main parties and shifting alliances led to the political chaos. There was also a widespread perception among Somalis that the UN had decided to abandon its policy of neutrality and was planning to ‘invade’ the country. Aidid, used this perception in order to unite his forces against the UN. This political chaos, started to become dangerous for UNOSOM I. Somali resistance led to failure. A United Task Force (UNITAF) operating under the authority of Chapter VII of the charter was set up. This allowed for the use of force to maintain peace and did not require the consent of the states involved. In December 1992, the US Operation Restore Hope began. President Bush dispatched US troops to assist with famine relief as part of the larger UN effort. Critics accused Bush of ordering the mission to end his term on a high note. Most reports agreed that he intended the operation be accomplished with a narrowly defined mission and within a very short period of time. However, this was not possible. UNITAF transitioned to UNOSOM II in March 1993. UNOSOM II’s efforts to protect aid deliveries were directly challenged by Aidid. Lack of a national Somali leadership and chaos in Mogadishu hampered the security operation. Bill Clinton reduced the number of US troops; by June 1993, only 1,200 remained, aided by troops from 28 other countries acting under the authority of the UN. However, 24 Pakistani soldiers were ambushed and killed while inspecting a weapons-storage facility. The UN unofficially blamed Aidid’s militia and US and UN troops attacked targets associated with Aidid’s forces but failed to capture the general. 11 The most significant challenge came on 3 October 1993; Aidid’s forces shot down two Black Hawk helicopters in a battle causing the deaths of 18 US soldiers and hundreds of Somalis. The deaths turned the tide of public opinion in the United States. Clinton pulled US troops out of combat four days later, and all US troops left the country in March 1994 having underestimated the task. The UN withdrew from Somalia in March 1995. Fighting continued in the country.

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

12 ‘Saddam Hussain’s hostility towards the Iranian Revolution was the main cause of the Iran–Iraq War.’ Assess this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 12 ‘Saddam Hussein’s hostility towards the Iranian Revolution was the 30 main cause of the Iran–Iraq War.’ Assess this view. Indicative content Saddam Hussein became President of Iraq in 1979, the year of Iran’s Islamic revolution which fuelled tensions between the two countries. At first it appeared that Iraq welcomed Iran’s Revolution as it overthrew the Shah, a common enemy. However Ayatollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba’ath government which angered Saddam but on 17 July 1979, he, nevertheless, gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and requested an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. Khomeini’s response was a rejection of Saddam’s request and for Islamic revolution in Iraq, Saddam regarded this as a threat to the Ba’ath government, especially because the secular Ba’ath party discriminated against and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran’s allies within Iraq and whom Khomeini saw as oppressed. Iraq had a secular Sunni-led government and Khomeini hoped that Iraq’s large Shiite population would topple it. Saddam decided to strike Iran first but he misjudged the situation believing that the fall of the Shah had left the country in chaos and that the western boycott of trade with Iran would further weaken its economy. He envisaged an easy victory over demoralised Iranian troops. Saddam began the war in September 1980 hoping that his pre-emptive strike would result in the Khomeini regime being overthrown before it could overthrow him. Saddam’s prime reason for waging war was to secure his own position and ultimately ensure that Iraq could be recognised as the leading power in the Gulf. He wished to annex Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower. Khuzestan’s large ethnic Arab population would allow Saddam to pose as a liberator of Arabs from Persian rule. Saddam’s goal was to replace Egypt as the leader of the Arab world and achieve domination over the Persian Gulf. He saw Iran’s increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation. Other Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait urged Iraq to attack, as they feared that an Islamic revolution would take place within their own borders. A successful invasion of Iran would enlarge Iraq’s petroleum reserves and make it the region’s most dominant power. His plan was to strike quickly with the ‘whirlwind war’ resulting in a swift victory for Iraq. He underestimated the power of Iranian revolutionary fervour; this made it easy for Iran to recruit soldiers who were prepared for martyrdom. The Shatt al-Arab was considered an important waterway for both states’ oil exports and in 1937 Iran and the newly independent Iraq signed a treaty to settle their dispute over it. However, in April 1969, Iran abrogated the treaty and stopped paying tolls to Iraq when its ships used the waterway claiming that most ships that used the waterway were Iranian and that the river’s borders showed that Iran had a better claim. Tension persisted between the two countries after Iran used a warship to escort a tanker down the river. 12 However, in April 1975 the Algiers Agreement was made by which Iraq made territorial concessions, including the Shatt al-Arab waterway, in exchange for normalised relations. In return for Iraq recognising that the frontier on the waterway ran along the entire thalweg, Iran ended its support of Iraq’s Kurdish guerrillas. Iraqis viewed the Algiers Agreement as humiliating. Thus, Saddam’s primary interest in the war may have stemmed from his desire to overturn the Algiers Agreement and to reassert his country’s sovereignty over both banks of the Shaṭṭ al-Arab.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?