Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2023 May/June Paper 2 · Variant 1

1 The Industrial Revolution in Britain, 1750–1850 (a) Explain why the development of steam power was important to the Industrial Revolution. [10] (b) ‘All social classes benefited from the Industrial Revolution.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain why the development of steam power was important to the 10 Industrial Revolution. Indicative content  It led to the development of the factory system as steam powered engines were not suited to the domestic system.  Steam power allowed for the use of more unskilled, and cheaper, labour.  It made the mass production of goods possible. This led to price drops and the creation of consumer demand, e.g. textiles.  Steam power provided a stimulus to coal production and the development of metallurgy.  It revolutionised transport – the railway engine. This stimulated the movement of raw materials and manufactured goods. Accept any other valid responses. 1(b) ‘All social classes benefited from the Industrial Revolution.’ How far do 20 you agree? Indicative content The three social groups to consider are the aristocracy, the middle class, and the working class. For the aristocracy, the Industrial Revolution did lead to a gradual lessening of their influence. For example, the growing demand for free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws (1846) showed that the concerns of industry and commerce were now overtaking those of the landed interests in Britain. However, the aristocracy, in some cases, did embrace the Industrial revolution, for example the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal and the Duke of Hamilton’s coalfields. For the middle classes it can be argued that of all the three groups the middle class most definitely did achieve real benefits. Employment was created by the Industrial revolution in the form of industrialists, bankers, merchants, engineers, lawyers, and factory managers. This raised their numbers and their wealth. As industry and commerce began to supersede agriculture as the economy’s dominant force, so the middle class demanded and won greater influence over government policy (Reform Act of 1832 and Municipal Corporations Act of 1835). This increase in status is seen in Sir Robert Peel, son of a northern industrialist, who was a powerful figure in British politics for over 20 years. However, the aristocracy continued to dominate public life; in the 30 years following the Reform Act, apart from Peel, most cabinet members and Prime Ministers were aristocrats. For the working class the Industrial Revolution did provide employment opportunities in the factories, mills and mines which were a bit more secure than the seasonal nature of work in pre-industrial times. Developments in agriculture and transportation allowed food to be supplied in bulk to the growing urban centres. Thus, famine, it might be said, was a thing of the past in industrialised Britain. However, the IR did have a damaging impact on home industries, such as spinning and weaving. The living conditions in the new urban centres, where the working class went seeking employment, were appalling. The lack of effective government regulation created overcrowding in housing and unsanitary conditions in the streets, which led to the rapid spread of disease. When a downturn in trade happened, unemployment followed for the working class, and there was no social welfare net to catch them only the resentful embrace of the workhouse. Therefore, it might be argued that of all the groups the position of the working class was not much different from pre- industrial times. Accept any other valid responses.

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

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why the creation of the German Confederation discouraged the development of German nationalism. [10] (b) To what extent was the Frankfurt Parliament’s failure caused by disagreements amongst its members? [20]

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why the creation of the German Confederation discouraged the 10 development of German nationalism. Indicative content  Whilst the German Confederation consisted of 39 states, far fewer than the hundreds which existed in the late 18th. century, there was no single unified German state.  The war against Napoleon, referred to as the War of Liberation, had raised nationalist feelings throughout the German states. However, the German Confederation reflected a lack of interest in, and no concern for, promoting a united Germany.  Its boundaries were modelled on those of the Holy Roman Empire rather than ones that would encourage the development of a unified German state. Thus, it contained areas containing Poles, Czechs, Danes and French but excluded areas which were largely German speaking.  It reflected the concerns of the rulers of the separate states, none of whom wanted to give up their power – a unified German state only needed one prince.  It was dominated by Austria who saw nationalism as an existential threat to its empire. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) To what extent was the Frankfurt Parliament’s failure caused by 20 disagreements amongst its members? Indicative content Arguments which support the central role played by disagreements amongst its members could be as follows. There were clear divisions on political lines amongst the Parliament’s members. Some favoured Big Germany with Austria maintaining its leadership whilst others supported Little Germany which saw no place for Catholic Austria and favoured the leadership of Protestant Prussia. It did seem in October 1848 the first view had prevailed. However, it only applied to Austria’s German lands, and this was unacceptable to Austria as it would mean the breakup of its Empire. Divisions existed along the lines of social class. It was dominated by the middle classes who saw the demands for improvements in social and working conditions as undermining the Parliament’s support for economic liberalism and costly to their profits. This meant the lower classes had no faith in the Parliament. There were other reasons, however, for the Parliament’s failure. The refusal by Prussia’s King Frederick-William IV of the imperial crown offered by the Parliament contributed to its failure. This was because it would not have the substantial military and economic support of Prussia. Therefore, it had no effective way to make its ideas and policies a reality. There was the question of legitimacy, also. The Parliament had not been initiated by the German Confederation. Therefore, in April 1849 Austria recalled its delegates, to be followed by Prussia in May and then by the delegates of Saxony and Hanover. The consequence of this was that the Parliament became a rump and not a national assembly. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What happened during the 1848–49 revolutions and what were their consequences?

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why the Russian Civil War broke out in 1918. [10] (b) How far was the February Revolution of 1917 caused by the Tsar’s lack of commitment to reform? [20]

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Russian Civil War broke out in 1918. 10 Indicative content  After the October Revolution of 1917 many groups had formed to oppose the Bolsheviks (monarchists/militarists), collectively referred to as The Whites.  The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was seen by many as a clear sign that the Bolsheviks were weak and unfit to govern Russia.  Russian nationalist minorities (e.g. Ukrainians/Georgians) fought to establish their independence from Russia.  The Bolshevik’s crushing of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, and subsequent outlawing of all other parties, showed that the Bolsheviks were not prepared to share power. This claim to absolute authority was unacceptable to many.  Some claim that Lenin wanted war an all socialist coalition would have made counter revolution inconceivable as the coalition would have rested on the only legitimate authority in Russia, the Constituent Assembly. Some Bolsheviks would have accepted a socialist coalition, but Lenin was not one of them and rejected this course. A worldwide revolution was coming, and compromise would undermine its chances of success. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) How far was the February Revolution of 1917 caused by the Tsar’s lack 20 of commitment to reform? Indicative content Arguments to support the Tsar’s lack of commitment to reform in causing the February Revolution of 1917 might be as follows. Nicholas II was committed to autocracy from the outset of his reign. It is true he did seem to temper this commitment in 1905 with the October Manifesto. However, these reforms were undermined in April 1906 when the Fundamental Laws were passed. The Tsar reserved the right to rule independent of the Duma when it was not in session and to close it at any point. The Tsar could change, also, the electoral system. Such actions alienated liberal support as they displayed a contemptuous attitude to the Duma. Therefore, reforming the political system could not be done by the Tsar. Therefore, in February 1917 a different system to Tsarism was adopted. However, other factors played a significant part in causing the February Revolution in 1917. The Tsar’s decision, in 1915, to take personal command at the front had proven to be disastrous. He became associated with every military setback. The only way to change the situation lay in removing the one in charge of the war’s conduct. The loyalty of the army which had sustained the Tsar in 1905 was no more by February 1917. Most soldiers wanted to go home, disillusioned with how they had been led. News of land seizures in the countryside added further fuel to this wish. This loss of support meant the Tsar’s government could no longer control Petrograd once the riots and strikes became critical. The Tsar’s absence from the centre of government led to the Tsarina and Rasputin adopting more prominent roles. Rumours of their relationship and their influence on policies undermined further Nicholas II’s position by February 1917. The war caused food shortages and inflation which led to a rising tide of anger and discontent. This culminated in the Women’s Day march (February 23) and city-wide strikes in Petrograd (February 25). On February 27, 1917, the reformed Petrograd Soviet met and the following day the Tsar was prevented from returning to Petrograd to try and personally calm the situation. On March 2nd. 1917 Nicholas II abdicated in favour of his brother Michael. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on How and why did the Bolsheviks seize power in October 1917?

4 The origins of the Civil War, 1820–61 (a) Explain why seven states had seceded from the Union by February 1861. [10] (b) To what extent were increased sectional tensions between 1850 and 1856 caused by the violence seen in ‘Bleeding Kansas’? [20]

Mark scheme: 4(a) Explain why seven states had seceded from the Union by February 1861. 10 Indicative content By the beginning of February 1861 seven states had seceded from the Union. They were: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.  The primary reason was the defence of slavery as an institution. Many of the official documents from the states mentioned the constitutional, natural and Godly nature of slavery as it existed in the United States. In states such as Texas and Georgia they also argued for the extension of slavery into the territories and newly acquired land. They feared that the election of Lincoln would mean the end of slavery, as many in the North hoped.  Many were also concerned about the economic impact of abolishing slavery. In the official secession documents from Mississippi and Georgia representatives noted that submitting to the North would mean a loss of billions of dollars in terms of property and business.  States’ Rights – The states also argued that the Union was a compact, one that could be annulled if the states were not satisfied with what they received in return from other states and/or from the federal government. They argued that because the North had refused to uphold the Fugitive Slave act (as detailed in the 1850 Compromise) that this compact had already been broken. Accept any other valid responses 4(b) To what extent were increased sectional tensions between 1850 and 1856 20 caused by the violence seen in ‘Bleeding Kansas’? Indicative content Discussion of sectional divisions in Kansas might consider how, in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska act was proposed to open the territory for building the Transcontinental Railroad. However, there was concern because the territory was North of the 36, 30 line and so slavery was forbidden under the Missouri Compromise. To resolve this Stephen Douglas proposed Popular Sovereignty in the state to allow settlers to decide whether it should be slave or free. Following the decision that Popular Sovereignty would be used the state was flooded by pro-slavery settlers and abolitionists wanting to vote in elections and decide how the state should be run. Two rival state capitals were set up; one that was pro-slavery in Lecompton and the abolitionists in Topeka. The tensions led to open warfare in the territory between pro and anti-slavery settlers; one example was the Battle of Osawatomie in 1856 where John Brown fought. The term Bleeding Kansas was used to describe the conflict. This open violence horrified those in both the North and South but many blamed antagonists from the other section for the violence. The discussions spilled over into Congressional disagreements (including the notorious Caning of Senator Sumner) and hardened opinions across the country. Other possible causes of sectional division might include the application of the Fugitive Salve Act which was included in the Compromise of 1850 and caused sectional tensions to increase. Many Northerners felt that being made to capture and return fugitive slaves was against their constitutional rights. On the other hand, Southern public opinion felt it was part of the commitment of the Compromise to not destroying slavery completely. The continuing discussions over the Fugitive Slave Act meant that tensions were constantly being brought to the fore. The foundation of the Republican Party in 1854 also encouraged renewed sectional tensions. It was a political party which was clearly aimed at just the Northern section and was designed to fight for their views. This caused outrage amongst many Southerners even those who had previously seen as moderate. It showed that the political system was becoming increasingly split. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why was there increasing tension between the North and the South before 1860?

5 Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861–77 (a) Explain why leaders were accused of being anti-democratic during the Civil War. [10] (b) ‘Grant made Reconstruction a success.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 5(a) Explain why leaders were accused of being anti-democratic during the 10 Civil War. Indicative content In response to leading countries through a war, leaders in the North and South took steps to suspend certain civil liberties. Although many supported these actions, there were also those who saw these moves as undemocratic.  Lincoln moved quickly to suspend habeas corpus in certain parts of Maryland, which raised the issue of whether he had the constitutional authority to do so.  In the Merryman case, the chief justice said no. Lincoln ignored him. By early 1862 several hundred political prisoners were detained without trial. Lincoln allowed their release if they took an oath of loyalty. Most did.  In September 1862, in response to draft resistance, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the North and introduced military courts to try civilians under arrest without charge. Several hundred draft resisters were imprisoned.  In May 1863, the best-known opponent of the war, Clement Vallandigham, was arrested and exiled to avoid embarrassment. A few months earlier, in March 1863, Congress had at long last authorised the suspension of habeas corpus by the president. Under the Act, the federal government was meant to give lists of all those detained. It never did so, claiming the pressures of war made it difficult to keep such records.  The South was quick to suspend habeas corpus and to introduce martial law which it used it widely, especially in the Border States. According to one source, thousands of dissidents were held without trial.  Both Lincoln and Davis used conscription – the rich could pay someone to take their place – this was resented as unfair – New York Draft Riots. Accept any other valid responses. 5(b) ‘Grant made Reconstruction a success.’ How far do you agree? 20 Indicative content Possible discussions about the actions of Grant as a Reconstruction president might consider the major fall out (and impeachment) which had occurred between Andrew Johnson and Congress meant that Grant ran his 1868 election campaign based on protecting the rights of former enslaved people in the South. This issue was brought to a head through the campaign as the KKK continued their terrorist activities across the Southern states. Additionally, in 1870 Grant signed the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed universal male suffrage regardless of race. In addition, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the first of four Force Acts that targeted illegal voter suppression in the South. The Force Acts strangled the public operation of groups such as the Klan, gave the federal government control over the administration of national elections, and authorised the president to use the military to protect voting rights. Although Grant’s actions made Klan activity difficult the Republican mandate in the South continued to wilt. In spite of this he secured a landslide majority in his election of 1872. This was most likely due to the large numbers of black Americans who had been enfranchised because of his actions. Possible discussion of the weaknesses of Reconstruction might consider how Grant’s attention soon turned to the economic problems in the South as the Panic of 1873 devastated sections of the economy. After this the South once again felt ignored. By the time of the Compromise of 1877 the lives of many ex-slaves had changed very little from before the Civil War. Even when the North was at its most interventionist, it never tried to change the system of land ownership. The plantations were never broken up; the whites still owned the land, and the blacks did not. Although the law had changed the socio- economic status of many ex-slaves had not. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What were the aims of Reconstruction and how successful was it?

6 The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal policies, 1920–41 (a) Explain why new industries grew rapidly during the 1920s. [10] (b) To what extent was opposition to the New Deal effective? [20] Section C: International option International history, 1870–1945

Mark scheme: 6(a) Explain why new industries grew rapidly during the 1920s. 10 Indicative content  Energy was a key factor, especially electricity and oil. As electrification reached a growing number of cities and towns, consumers demanded new products such as lightbulbs, refrigerators, and toasters. Factories installed electric motors and saw productivity surge. Oil booms in Texas, Oklahoma, and California enabled the United States to dominate world petroleum production, which became even more important in an age of automobiles and trucks.  New products – the life of the American housewife was transformed by newly available products in the 1920s. Refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and canned goods meant that chores were quicker. Many of these new products became cheaper as they were mass produced and so were available to many families. Mass production also transformed automobiles e.g. Henry Ford.  Advertising – new style tabloid magazines such as the New York Daily News launched covering crime, sport and scandal. They also included lots of adverts for products for the home. Coca-Cola changed its advertising in the 1920s to show the drink as a ‘fun’ consumer product. In 1925 Bruce Barton’s book ‘The Man Nobody Knows’ compared advertising and religion saying that Jesus Christ would have been an advertising man in modern day America. These new markets drove new industries.  Laissez-faire approach of the Republican governments throughout the 1920s encouraged the development of new industries. Accept any other valid responses. 6(b) To what extent was opposition to the New Deal effective? 20 Indicative content Possible discussion of effective New Deal opposition might consider the Second New Deal and how it is possible to argue that the opposition which Roosevelt faced from the left after 1933 did change his policies as he moved towards the Second New Deal and re-election. Speaking in 1935, Roosevelt himself said, ‘I am fighting Communism, Huey Longism, Coughlinism and Townsendism’. In 1936, these three movements came together to form the Union Party to contest the presidential election. It gained less than one million votes. It can be argued, however, that the threat posed by these groups to Roosevelt was such that he adapted his policies to address some of their demands, the clearest example being his plans for a Wealth Tax. Those plans did not come to much after the election, however. Some commentators go further, arguing that most of the Second New Deal was a response to these mass movements, for example, Social Security was first proposed by Francis Townsend. Furthermore, there was opposition from the Supreme Court, for example the rejection of crucial New Deal legislation, in particular the NRA and the AAA in 1935–36. The composition of the Supreme Court in 1933–36 with four conservatives – ‘the Four Horsemen’ – plus a swing judge being opposed to great federal state intervention. The tradition, based on the 1905 Lochner judgement, that the Supreme Court would always rule against laws and policies which limited individual economic freedom. Possible discussion of weaknesses of New Deal opposition might consider how the political opponent of the New Deal which would have the greatest effect on FDR’s reforms was the Republican Party in Congress. Not only were the numbers against the Republicans being effective but the party itself was divided between Eastern conservatives and Western progressives. They took quite different attitudes towards New Deal reforms. In addition, the Republicans were the minority party for the first time in a long time – this took a lot of getting used to. They were also seen as the party in charge when the Great Depression occurred and so blamed by many for the situation the country found itself in. The Republican approach seemed no answer to a depression of unprecedented depth. Discussion may also focus on opposition outside of Republican opposition. The two best known are Huey Long and Charles Coughlin. Huey Long was a Democratic Senator, Charles Coughlin a Roman Catholic priest. Both, after initially supporting the New Deal, turned against it for being too cautious and ineffective. Both used the new medium of the radio to gain support. Before his assassination, Huey Long became more left-wing. Father Coughlin’s views moved more towards the right. Both gained a great public response, but it never turned into organised and effective electoral opposition to a President and a party which gained more support in 1936. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why was there a second New Deal and how successful was it?

7 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1920s (a) Explain why the successor states of eastern Europe faced political problems in the 1920s. [10] (b) How far did the Locarno Treaties improve European international relations in the 1920s? [20]

Mark scheme: 7(a) Explain why the successor states of eastern Europe faced political 10 problems in the 1920s. Indicative content  No history of democratic structure or of republican government. These newly defined geographic regions under newly formed governments were unaccustomed to deciding their own fate. These independent nations all tried democracy, regarded as the best system by which to introduce the principle of national self- determination to a new nation. However, in a region where democracy was unfamiliar, the system had many problems.  No traditional ruling group. The politicians of Eastern Europe had been handed their orders from the governments that had dominated them. They were not used to democratic deliberation and government within a democratic framework. Indecision on many issues led to chaos and inaction on the part of many Eastern governments.  Ethnic divisions. Woodrow Wilson wanted to re-draw the frontiers of eastern Europe so that all races ruled themselves. This was achieved to a certain extent, but it brought in its wake further problems. The peacemakers tried to protect minorities by putting clauses into the treaties forcing countries to treat minorities fairly. However, the Germans were not allowed self-determination. Many Germans found themselves living in Poland or Lithuania, and the German Sudetenland was made part of Czechoslovakia to give Czechoslovakia an industrial base. Anschluss with Austria was forbidden. Also, the Treaty of Neuilly in 1919 took Bulgarian areas, and gave them to Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania while the Treaty of Sèvres gave Turkish Smyrna to Greece. Like Germany, Bulgaria and Turkey were defeated powers, so they did not get self-determination. Eventually, internal conflicts stemming from new self-determination by national majorities arose from disaffected minorities who preferred the rule of neighbours. In particular, in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, there were ‘enclaves’ of minority races.  Economic difficulties made stable government a struggle.  Hungary experienced a great deal of instability during the inter-war years. After a period of chaos, it decided on monarchy, and Hungary became, in effect, a dictatorship run by the landed aristocracy.  Czechoslovakia proved the only nation in Eastern Europe able to function reasonably well as a democracy during the inter-war period. Accept any other valid responses. 7(b) How far did the Locarno Treaties improve European international 20 relations in the 1920s? Indicative content Discussion of improved international relations may consider how the main treaty between Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy formally recognised Germany’s revised western borders established by the Treaty of Versailles. Also, Germany, France and Belgium undertook not to attack each other with Britain and Italy acting as guarantors. In the event of aggression by any of the first three states against another, all other parties were to assist the country under attack. Germany also agreed to sign arbitration conventions with France and Belgium and arbitration treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, undertaking to refer future disputes to an arbitration tribunal or to the Permanent Court of International Justice. France signed further treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, pledging mutual assistance in the event of conflict with Germany. These essentially reaffirmed existing treaties of alliance concluded by France with Poland on 19 February 1921 and with Czechoslovakia on 25 January 1924. This agreement created the so called ‘Spirit of Locarno’ a spell of international co-operation and Germany was able to join the League of Nations as a permanent member of the Council. Stresemann and Briand were awarded the Noble Peace Prize and in 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed. Discussion of the failure to resolve issue may include exploration of the underlying tension between Germany and France remained and re-emerged following the death of Stresemann and the economic collapse in 1929. There was still dissatisfaction in Germany which was masked by the success of the Weimar Republic in the late 1920s but re-emerged once economic difficulties returned. Eastern European states were not given the same guarantee against future aggression as the western states. Poles in particular were furious with the outcome as they felt their need for security against future German aggression had been ignored in the Treaty. This led to a deterioration in Franco-Polish relations. The guarantees attached to the Treaty did not necessarily commit the guarantor nations to military intervention. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on How and why did international relations improve, 1924–29?

8 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1930s (a) Explain why Hitler supported the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. [10] (b) To what extent was the League’s failure to prevent Mussolini’s attack on Abyssinia caused by Britain’s reluctance to take action against him? [20]

Mark scheme: 8(a) Explain why Hitler supported the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. 10 Indicative content  Though Franco himself was not a Fascist, the Spanish fascists were part of his coalition of support and this was another right-wing government and potential ally for Hitler  The Republican government included communist support and so this was part of Hitler’s anti-communist agenda.  It increased insecurity of France by threatening its south-west border.  It was a convenient way of testing new methods of warfare like arial bombardment. Accept any other valid responses. 8(b) To what extent was the League’s failure to prevent Mussolini’s attack on 20 Abyssinia caused by Britain’s reluctance to take action against him? Indicative content Discussion of the British response may consider how Britain was one of the permanent members of the League and therefore their support was crucial to any successful action. However, the British people did not see any benefit in getting involved in a conflict so far from Britain and with little relevance to them. In late December 1935, Hoare of the United Kingdom and Laval of France proposed the secret Hoare-Laval Pact, which would have ended the war but allowed Italy to control large areas of Ethiopia. Mussolini agreed to consider the plan to buy time for fear of oil sanctions against Italy, but he had no intention of accepting it. The plan caused an outcry and heavy public criticism in the United Kingdom and France when the plan was leaked to the media. Hoare and Laval were accused of betraying the Abyssinians, and both resigned. The pact was dropped, but the perception spread that the United Kingdom was not serious about the League's principles. The Hoare-Laval Pact showed distrust of Britain towards the League. The United Kingdom did not take any serious action against Italy, such as blocking Italian access to the Suez Canal. Britain basically still wanted to retain a positive relationship with Mussolini because of his potential role in restricting Hitlers ambitions re. Austria. Discussion of other factors may include how the United States, which was generally indifferent to the League's weak sanctions, increased its exports to Italy. It may also consider how, in March 1936, Hitler marched troops into the Rhineland, which had been prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles. The French were now so desperate to get Italian support against German aggression directly on their border that they would not take any further action with sanctions. Since France was prepared to give Abyssinia to Mussolini, his troops were able to continue their war relatively unchallenged by the rest of Europe. Haile Selassie was also forced into exile on 2 May and all of the sanctions that had been put in place by the League were dropped after the Italian capture of the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, on 5 May 1936. Ethiopia was then merged with the other Italian colonies to become Italian East Africa. The League’s structure did not favour swift response, for example it included unanimous voting and lacked military force. Accept any other valid responses.

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

9 China and Japan, 1912–45 (a) Explain why the Chinese Communist Party was able to build a strong base in Yan’an. [10] (b) ‘Economic problems were the main cause of Japanese expansionism in the 1930s.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 9(a) Explain why the Chinese Communist Party was able to build a strong 10 base in Yan’an. Indicative content  Remote from centre of KMT government.  Already a communist base before Long March arrived.  Hardened veterans of Long March provided a strong base for building support.  Once war with Japan broke out KMT were distracted.  After the Long March the CCP spent months examining alternative bases in Shaanxi province. In 1936, they chose the town of Yan’an, as the heart of the new Soviet where the Communists hoped to fight the Japanese invaders and earn the respect of China’s masses.  Mao Zedong ended the Long March in charge of the Red Army but the leadership of the party was still in question. Mao’s had rivals, e.g. Wang Ming, sent from Moscow in 1937 to bring the CCP into line and there was also a clique of pro-Western liberals, the ideological children of the May Fourth movement. Mao sought to win over both factions with his own ideas, which later evolved into a broader political philosophy known as ‘Mao Zedong Thought’. Mao argued that Marxist-Leninist theory must be adapted to suit Chinese conditions, to win the hearts and minds of the peasantry so they might become the driving force of the revolution.  The good habits Mao had taught the Red Army back in Jiangxi helped gain the support of the peasantry. This stood in contrast to the corruption, lack of empathy and occasional brutality of the Nationalists. Mao encouraged party leaders and intellectuals to live and work among the peasants.  At Yan’an Mao was able to establish a safe base which gave him time to rebuild his army. He emerged as the unopposed leader of the Chinese Communist Party. Once the march was over, the Chinese Communist Party had a base to work on and it was mostly unmolested by the KMT. This allowed their movement to survive until the Japanese invaded, and this helped the Communists solidify their hold in Northwest China while the KMT were preoccupied fending off the invading Japanese in 1937.  Based in Yan’an from 1936–1949, the CCP was able to change from an orthodox Soviet-style party based in the cities and led by intellectuals and urban workers to a rural-based Maoist revolutionary party composed primarily of peasants and soldiers. The CCP gained the support of many rural peasants by carrying out land reform which redistributed land from landlords. Accept any other valid responses. 9(b) ‘Economic problems were the main cause of Japanese expansionism in 20 the 1930s.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Discussion of economic difficulties may consider how industrial Japan favoured the expansion of the country’s empire because of the availability of raw materials. When the Great Depression hit the world this caused countries to no longer be able to import products from Japan, which is how Japan made up their economy from. These actions led Japan to fall into and economic crisis. With the industrial expansion goal in mind, Japan established plantations in its colonial territories including those growing sugar in Taiwan, soybeans in Manchuria, and rice in Korea. These commodities helped develop the commercial side of Japan’s economy through trading with the United States and Europe. Eventually, international trade would draw Japan into the Second World War when the United States threatened to cut off oil supplies in 1941. Japan was lacking in natural resources and building space, so their military invaded Manchuria in 1931. Japan then started gaining control in Korea and Taiwan. Japan took these actions because more than 40% of their food and raw materials were imported from these places. As a result of the Great Depression, half of all of Japan’s factories were closed by 1931 because no one was in a position to buy imported products from them. With half of the factories in Japan closing, it left many people without jobs and a way to get food for their family. In desperate moments, children were begging for food to passengers on passing trains and farmers had no choice but to eat tree bark to stay alive. Discussion may also include the role of militarism. Japan’s imperial expansion in the 1930s was due to the long-term view taken by the country’s military elite, argues Louise Young, author of ‘Japan’s Total Empire’. Japanese military leaders believed that seizing control of areas like Korea was vital to securing Japan’s security in the East Asia region. In addition, the reputation of the military was largely based on battlefield successes, meaning imperial expansion boosted military prestige. The move towards imperialism began far earlier in 1868 with the Meiji restoration. The nation began a march towards imperialism and the inherent need for wealth, prestige and reputation that Japan equated with being an imperialistic military power. Then in May 1932 a group of army officers murdered the current prime minister and attacked key government and banking officials. Japan’s military and economic leaders decided to press for further conquests as they were close to going into the Second World War in search to consolidate political control and interests in rich resources that were in other parts of Asia. The military then started organising a Japanese military dictatorship which wasn’t led by a specific leader. Japan became more like a dictatorship but with a group of leaders and not a single person. Accept any other valid responses.

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