Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2023 Oct/Nov Paper 2 · Variant 3

1 The Industrial Revolution in Britain, 1750–1850 (a) Explain why there was opposition to the demands for social reform which were caused by the Industrial Revolution. [10] (b) ‘The laissez-faire approach to economic affairs caused the Industrial Revolution.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain why there was opposition to the demands for social reform, 10 caused by the Industrial Revolution. Indicative content • The French Revolution (1789) and war with France (1793–1802 and 1803–1815) raised real fears that demands for such reform were the prelude to violent revolution. • The House of Lords and House of Commons were dominated by landowners, businessmen and professionals. They had no understanding of the lives of the lower classes and so did not support demands for social reform. • To meet the demands for change to living conditions would be expensive (improved housing/sewage pipes). The cost would be borne by the middle classes and the wealthy, who dominated parliament and local government. • To meet the demands for improved working conditions would impact upon the profitability of industry. • It was believed Britain had achieved industrialisation because government had not interfered in business. Any government regulation to meet the demands for social reform caused by industrialisation was a threat to this industrial success. Accept any other valid responses. 1(b) ‘The laissez faire approach to economic affairs caused the Industrial 20 Revolution.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Laissez faire means ‘Leave alone.’ Arguments to support the role of laissez faire could be as follows. The laissez faire approach acted as an incentive to invest. The lack of interference meant that many people with money were prepared to invest in projects (e.g. via purchase of shares) which offered the prospect of a healthy return. As a result, factories were established by their owners, not government fiat, as their owners were able to benefit from cheap labour, largely unprotected by government legislation. The laissez faire approach, therefore, encouraged entrepreneurship and technological innovation. However, this view can be challenged. It was the development in agriculture which raised food production and so was able to sustain a growing population. This population both increased the demand for manufactured goods and provided the labour force which could meet this demand. Developments in transport proved essential to move, in bulk, food, raw materials, and finished goods. This lowered costs which led to increased profits. Inventions and technological advances helped to create a vast increase in the output of coal, iron, food, and manufactured goods. It could be argued that the compensation government provided to former slave owners after the ending of slavery in 1833 produced a reservoir of funds which were used for industrialisation (e.g., the railways). Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why was there rapid industrialisation after 1870?

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Austria lost the war of 1866 against Prussia. [10] (b) How far were the revolutions in Germany, 1848–49, caused by nationalism? [20]

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why Austria lost the war of 1866 against Prussia. 10 Indicative content • The organisational skills of the Prussian High Command meant that there was advanced planning and preparation. Thus, Prussia was able to use the railways far more efficiently than Austria in the mobilisation of its army. Only one single track railway ran from Vienna to Bohemia whereas Prussia was able to use five lines to move troops south. • The secret alliance Bismarck made with the king of Italy in April 1866 meant that Italy followed Prussia into war against Austria. As a result, the Austrian army was forced to fight on two fronts, in the north against Prussia and in the south against Austria. • General von Moltke used more daring tactics. To prevent Austrian troops moving up from the south, having defeated the Italians, and linking with their troops in the north von Moltke took the double risk of crossing into Bohemia and dividing his forces for faster movement, only concentrating them again on the eve of battle. In contrast, the Austrian High Command missed several opportunities to annihilate the separated Prussian forces. • The Prussians used their new breech-loading needle guns which had a rate of fire five times greater than anything the Austrians used. In the major battle of the war at Sadowa/Königgrätz, 3 July 1866) this proved decisive, and the Austrian army retreated in disorder. • The Austrian government realised continuing the war would result only in further defeat and might lead to the breakup of the Empire. Therefore, Austria sought an end to the fighting. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) How far were the revolutions in Germany, 1848–49, caused by 20 nationalism? Indicative content Arguments supporting nationalism’s central role could be as follows. There had been a growing sense of nationalism in the German states since 1815, with the liberal wish for an end to arbitrary government and the establishment of some form of parliamentary system. The success of greater economic integration amongst the German states, as seen in the Zollverein, seemed to suggest national unity would enhance economic prosperity. The position set out by the Frankfurt parliament in its draft constitution for a united Germany would seem to point to nationalism as a driving force in the events of 1848– 49. Thus, the German states were to be united as a German Empire led by a German Emperor. The government would represent the populations of all the states. Nationalism was a key issue in the troubles Austria faced in its empire as its many subject peoples demanded independence. In March 1848 Metternich, who since 1815 had opposed nationalism and liberalism in the German states, fell from power. This seemed to be a sign that now was the time for such ideas to flourish. However, there were other influences behind the revolutions of 1848–49. In the 1840s the German states were facing a widespread economic depression which caused a great deal of hardship. Between 1816 and 1848 the population in German states had risen from 24 million to 36 million. This meant some areas found it increasingly hard to sustain their populations, and many amongst the peasantry still owed feudal dues to their landowners. In areas where peasants had become tenant farmers the rents were high. This produced resentment and a desire for change. In the towns working and living conditions were poor. The number of strikes and riots multiplied in the 1830s and 1840s. It is not surprising that the revolutions were principally urban. The growth of mechanisation threatened skilled artisans as it pushed down costs and made hand-produced goods relatively expensive. The economic situation deteriorated further in 1846 with a bad harvest. A potato blight occurred which led to the erection of barricades in Berlin, the looting of shops and the storming of the Crown Prince’s palace. The increase in food prices lead to the fall in demand for other goods and caused unemployment to rise as businesses laid off workers. All this created unrest in both urban and rural areas by 1848. Also, the power in the German states lay with the princes and the nobility. However, the economic crisis seemed to show that they lacked the will to alleviate the social distress. This led to growing criticism from the middle-classes who felt that they should no longer be excluded from participation in the political process. The existence of censorship and the secret police restricted the airing of these grievances and discussion of how to tackle the issues. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What were the causes of the Revolutions of 1848?

3 The Russian Revolution, 1894–1921 (a) Explain why there was opposition to the introduction of the New Economic Policy. [10] (b) ‘Disunity amongst its critics kept the Tsarist regime secure in the period 1906–14.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why there was opposition to the introduction of the New 10 Economic Policy. Indicative content The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a more market-oriented economic policy which allowed private individuals to own small-scale enterprises. It was introduced in 1921 to replace, temporarily, War Communism. • It was antithetical to the revolutionary theory which lay behind War Communism, which the Bolsheviks had acted upon since October 1917. Therefore, the NEP was ideologically flawed. • War Communism had contributed greatly to the Bolsheviks maintaining control. The NEP was untested. • Whilst Lenin stressed the temporary nature of the NEP some saw it as the start of a backing away, or retreat, from socialism which would only gather apace – private ownership of businesses would mean the reappearance of the rich. • The great dislike of War Communism amongst the peasantry was seen by some as a price worth paying to achieve the transition to socialism. This was particularly felt amongst young Bolsheviks. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) ‘Disunity amongst its critics kept the Tsarist regime secure in the period 20 1906 to 1914.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Arguments to support this view might be as follows. Until the issuing of the October Manifesto in 1905 political parties were illegal. This meant there was no history of cross-party cooperation, and this led to these parties being highly suspicious and intolerant of one another. The liberal critics of the Tsar had been appalled at what they had seen in the Revolution of 1905 and were willing to try and make the system work, especially after the October Manifesto and the establishing of the Duma. However, groups like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wanted to end Tsarism. Thus, cooperation and collective action were impossible to organise or sustain. This was compounded by the fact that there were often divisions within groups. For example, The Social Revolutionaries saw after its first congress in 1906 a split between the left wing, who said its party programme ignored the industrial proletariat, and the right, who believed the policy of giving the land to those who worked it was unworkable in current Russian conditions. Thus, they were more a collection of radical groups than a genuinely coordinated party. By 1912 the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks had become two distinct and opposed Marxist parties. However, several other factors were as important, if not more so, for maintaining the security of the regime in this period. The Russian Orthodox Church taught acceptance of, and obedience to, the Tsar amongst the peasantry, the largest group in Russian society. The Tsar was God’s appointee, so to question his authority was to question God. The reforms of Stolypin had helped, partially, to further bring aboard the conservative peasantry. There was an increase in agricultural output and some industrial growth. The army remained loyal to the regime throughout this period; indeed, it was this loyalty which had saved the regime during the Revolution of 1905. In addition, the secret police, the Okhrana, proved effective in infiltrating various groups. The tercentenary celebrations for the Romanovs in 1913 displayed the general inbuilt loyalty for the regime. It can be argued it was only the regime’s mishandling of the war after 1914 which proved fatal to its security. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What were the causes and outcomes of the 1905 Revolution up to 1914?

4 The origins of the Civil War, 1820–61 (a) Explain why Texas joining the Union was controversial. [10] (b) To what extent was Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election caused by divisions in the Democratic Party? [20]

Mark scheme: 4(a) Explain why Texas joining the Union was controversial. 10 Indicative content • After gaining independence from Spain in the 1820s, Mexico welcomed foreign settlers to sparsely populated Texas, and a large group of Americans led by Stephen F. Austin settled along the Brazos River. The Americans soon outnumbered the resident Mexicans, and by the 1830s attempts by the Mexican government to regulate these semi-autonomous American communities led to rebellion. In March 1836, in the midst of armed conflict with the Mexican government, Texas declared its independence from Mexico. • The citizens of the independent Republic of Texas elected Sam Houston president but also endorsed the entrance of Texas into the Union. The likelihood of Texas joining the Union as a slave state delayed any formal action by the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. It was feared that it would upset the balance within Congress and pull power in the United States further to the South. • In 1844, Congress finally agreed to annex the territory of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas entered the United States as a slave state. • The inclusion of Texas in the Union challenged the Missouri Compromise because it threatened to upset the delicate balance over slavery which was held in the Senate and seemed to show a growing ‘slave power’. • Led to conflict with Mexico over disputed territory on the Texas-Mexico border Accept any other valid responses. 4(b) To what extent was Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election caused by 20 divisions in the Democratic Party? Indicative content Possible discussion around divisions in the Democratic Party might discuss how, during the Lincoln Douglas debates, Douglas strongly advocated the policy of popular sovereignty, but Lincoln reminded him that this went against the recent Dred Scott judgement that had stated that slavery continued in free territories. In what became known as the Freeport Doctrine Douglas replied that no law could overcome the opinion of citizens on slavery. This was seen as a betrayal by many Southern Democrats. The Democrats met Charleston in April 1860 to choose their candidate for the election in tumultuous mood. Northern Democrats wanted to nominate Stephen Douglas because they felt he had the best chance of beating Republicans in the North. Douglas though was an enemy of many Southern Democrats because of his championing of popular sovereignty in new territories. Southern Democrats left the convention and later nominated the then vice-president John C. Breckenridge. This split would prove fatal to Democratic electoral hopes. Possible discussion of other factors in the election of Lincoln might consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates which took place from August 21st to October 15th across the state of Illinois. Lincoln and Douglas were both candidates for election to the Senate seat which was to be decided that autumn. Lincoln had challenged Douglas to a ‘war of ideas’, and Douglas was happy to oblige. They held seven debates in the period which caught the attention of the public across the nation. The performance of Lincoln was seen by many as a reason for his election success. Lincoln constantly returned to the idea that ‘A House Divided Could Not Stand’ and argued that black Americans should be entitled to rights under the Constitution. By the time of the 1860 election the Republicans desperately needed to win Illinois and other states in the region so Lincoln emerged as the man who would symbolise the hard-working self- made man of the frontier in these states. Anti-slavery might also be discussed. The growth in abolitionist feeling in the Northern states was clearly important to the political situation of the late 1850s. Many had been radicalised by the horrors of Bleeding Kansas earlier in the decade and supported extreme abolitionist positions. After John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry there were those in the North that celebrated him as a martyr although many also condemned his actions. Although abolitionists didn’t always agree with Lincoln most voted for him. 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 ex-slaves found it difficult to improve their lives during the Reconstruction period. [10] (b) How important was foreign influence in determining the outcome of the Civil War? [20]

Mark scheme: 5(a) Explain why ex-slaves found it difficult to improve their lives during the 10 Reconstruction period. Indicative content Ex-slaves faced economic and political challenges in this period: • Most ex-slaves remained farming the land still retained by their former owners as sharecroppers. This was not what many had expected, e.g. Sherman’s forty acres and a mule. • Their social situation improved very little. Because most ex-slaves remained where they had lived before the war, their place in Southern society changed hardly at all. By 1877 the Freedmen’s Bureau was a thing of the past, as were the benefits it undoubtedly brought. • Their political situation was slow to change. While ex-slaves gained some political rights via the 15th amendment, the practical implementation of those rights was too dependent upon Northern carpetbaggers, US troops and Southern whites. When Grant’s administration lost interest in the South after 1873 any gains quickly disappeared. • Once Southern white regained control, either Black Codes [1865–66] or Jim Crow Laws [admittedly after 1877] were implemented. Thus, ex- slaves’ right to vote and ability to win elections was short-lived. Accept any other valid responses. 5(b) How important was foreign influence in determining the outcome of the 20 Civil War? Indicative content With the outbreak of the Civil War the United States issued a global decree warning against foreign involvement but this did not prevent involvement from both Britain and France albeit in an informal manner. Great Britain remained officially neutral but many private companies still traded with the Confederacy. A vast majority of the Confederate Navy was built in Liverpool during the war using private money, and the port also became the unofficial location for the Confederate embassy within Great Britain. Not only were warships commissioned in Great Britain, so too were ships specifically designed to outrun Union blockade forces and smuggle illegal goods to and from Confederate controlled land. However, British public opinion was consistently in favour of the abolitionist mind set which they believed the North held and this probably meant that British support for the Confederacy was more muted than it might have been despite the attempts by Confederate leaders to woo British politicians. France's trade prospects were also hurt because of Northern blockades of Southern ports. France wanted to intervene in order to ensure the trade of cotton, wine, brandy and silk. Despite its intention of staying out of war with the United States, France invaded Mexico and installed its own emperor, Maximillian, in 1864. France's goal was to improve its power abroad and set up a puppet government that could perhaps aid the Confederacy during the Civil War. France also could regain some of its former colonies in the Americas by working with the Confederates. Candidates may argue that financial involvement by Britain extended the war by allowing the Confederacy to extend their weapons and support. This could also be argued about the political involvement of the French. Other factors that may be discussed include the distribution of resources. The north had the main industrial centres and once they were geared up to war production in the South, which had a largely agricultural economy could not compete. Similarly, the north had most of the developed rail system which allowed for he mor rapid deployment of troops and equipment. The north also had a much larger population which enabled them to field larger armies and sustain greater losses. Also escaping slaves were willing to fight for the North increasing the pool of soldiers even more. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why did the Civil War last four years?

6 The Great Crash, the Great Depression and the New Deal policies, 1920–41 (a) Explain why there was a ‘Roosevelt Recession’ in 1937–38. [10] (b) How far do you agree that the Depression was caused by Hoover’s reaction to the Great Crash? [20] Section C: International option International history, 1870–1945

Mark scheme: 6(a) Explain why there was a ‘Roosevelt Recession’ in 1937–38. 10 Indicative content In what became known as the Roosevelt recession, the economic downturn of 1937 was, in the context of the Great Depression, what would now be called a ‘double-dip recession’. Profits fell, investment fell, and unemployment rose again – GDP dropped 10% and unemployment went back up to 20%. Four years of growth came to an end. Possible explanations for why: • The political explanation, believed by Roosevelt, was that the recession was a conspiracy by a ‘modern industrial oligarchy’ against the New Deal. Key businesses had cut investment and profits and laid off workers in protest against the New Deal in an attempt to undermine it. • The economic explanation was that the recession was simply the workings of the business cycle: after four years of economic growth, some contraction was unavoidable. • Other explanations include: that the deflationary policies of the federal government caused the recession. Monetary policy was tightened by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policy was tightened by the administration. The latter involved both cutting expenditure, especially by the WPA and the PWA, and increasing taxes, in the form of payments for the new Social Security, first payable in January 1937. Accept any other valid responses. 6(b) How far do you agree that the Depression was caused by Hoover’s 20 reaction to the Great Crash? Indicative content Hoover was politically unprepared to deal with a crisis like the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash and although he did try to take some action this often made the impact worse. Firstly, he decided to keep the USA on the gold standard, putting the USA at a competitive disadvantage compared with countries which did give up on gold. Doing so required higher interest rates, a policy which deepened the recession. Hoover also signed the Smoot-Hawley Bill to increase tariffs, another move which hit foreign trade – although not by as much as is sometimes portrayed. In late 1932, Hoover decided to increase taxes in order to try and restore confidence in American economic policy. All it did was further deflate the economy. However, Hoover did take some steps to allow the federal government to become more involved in the economy. In particular the Reconstruction Finance Corporation gave some support to loans to private industry; the Home Loans Bank System aimed to help mortgagees. So, eventually, he let the US federal government take some action to address the onset of economic depression. There were also other structural problems which would have been difficult for anyone to deal with. In the autumn of 1930, many believed that the US economy was on the road to recovery. The previous three economic recessions, in 1920, 1923, and 1926, had lasted an average of fifteen months. The downturn that began in the summer of 1929 had lasted for fifteen months. In November 1930, however, a series of crises among commercial banks turned what had been a typical recession into the beginning of the Great Depression. The banking crises continued to pop up around the country into 1931 – this time the location was Chicago. These crises caused panic, deflation and a lack of availability of credit. Accept any other valid responses.

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

7 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1920s (a) Explain why the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928 was seen as a major development in international relations. [10] (b) ‘The League of Nations was successful in dealing with international conflict in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 7(a) Explain why the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928 was seen as a major 10 development in international relations. Indicative content • French foreign minister, Aristide Briand hoped to tie the United States into a system of protective alliances against possible German aggression. • American ‘outlawry of war’ movement supported Kellogg proposal for multilateral treaty marking US re-engagement in international agreements. • multilateral agreement attempting to eliminate war as an instrument of national policy. • It was the most grandiose of a series of peacekeeping efforts after the First World War. • It was eventually signed by virtually all independent nations and marked a high point in the disarmament movement. Accept any other valid responses. 7(b) ‘The League of Nations was successful in dealing with international 20 conflict in the 1920s.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Discussion of successes might include how the League took home half a million prisoners of war from World War One. In 1921 Sweden and Finland accepted the League's arbitration to give the Aaland Islands to Finland. In 1922 the League set up camps and fed Turkish refugees. The League sent economics experts to help Austria when its government went bankrupt in 1923. Greece obeyed the League's orders to pull out of Bulgaria in 1925. Discussion considering the failures of the League of Nations might refer to: The Poles in 1921 invaded Vilna (the capital of Lithuania). The League ordered Poland to withdraw. Poland refused and the League could do nothing. In 1923 Mussolini ignored the League's orders to pull out of Corfu, and made Greece pay money to Italy. Attempt to promote disarmament talks failed to make any progress in the 1920s. in 1928, 65 countries signed the Kellogg Briand Pact, a treaty to end war – but then they just ignored it. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why was the League of Nations created and what challenges did it face in the 1920s?

8 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1930s (a) Explain why Britain was slow to begin rearmament in the 1930s. [10] (b) ‘The Nazi–Soviet Pact was brought about by Stalin’s mistrust of Britain and France.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 8(a) Explain why Britain was slow to begin re-armament in the 1930s. 10 Indicative content • Economic effects of Great Depression meant lack of funds for re- armament. • Washington Naval conference had placed limits on British navy which were renewed at the London Naval Conference in 1930. • Britain was committed to the world disarmament Conference which was only finally abandoned in Nov 1934 and so no plans for significant rearmament. • Strong anti-war feeling in public (Oxford Union debate and Peace Ballot). • Only when Japan, along with Germany and Italy, embarked on major increases in defence spending in 1936 did the British rearmament program began in earnest Accept any other valid responses. 8(b) ‘The Nazi–Soviet Pact was brought about by Stalin’s mistrust of Britain 20 and France.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Discussion of the mistrust of Britain and France might consider how, in Britain, the Cabinet was overwhelmingly in favour of an agreement and a public opinion poll showed that 84 per cent of the British public favoured an Anglo- French-Soviet military alliance but negotiations progressed very slowly and Chamberlain admitted: ‘I am so sceptical of the value of Russian help that I should not feel that our position was greatly worsened if we had to do without them.’ This slow progress made Stalin suspicious of British motives. Abandonment of Czechoslovakia made it unclear whether Brit and France would support Poland in the event of an attack. Coupled with this was a suspicion that western powers would be happy to sit back and watch Fascism and Communism battle it out in a conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union. France was investing heavily in a defensive strategy based around the Maginot Line which seemed to undermine the possibility of it taking offensive action in support of Poland and thus raised Stalin’s suspicions about French intentions. Discussion of the benefits the Nazi Soviet Pact brought for Stalin might consider how he still hoped for an alliance with Great Britain and France and by dismissing his experienced, alliance-seeking, Foreign Commissar may have been simply trying to scare the British and French into signing up. But the most likely explanation was that in the bluff and counterbluff of European diplomacy, Stalin was simply clearing the decks to be ready at a moment's notice to jump either way. On 28th August 1939, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed in Moscow. Germany would give the Soviet Union seven-year 5% credits amounting to 200 000 000 marks ($80 000 000) for German machinery and armaments, would buy from the Soviet Union 180 000 000 marks' worth ($72 000 000) of wheat, timber, iron ore, petroleum in the next two years. Apparently, the day after the agreement was signed, Stalin told Beria: ‘Of course, it's all a game to see who can fool whom. I know what Hitler's up to. He thinks he's outsmarted me, but actually it's I who have tricked him.’ The Pact also gave Stalin time to continue the industrialisation of the Five-Year Plans and offered the chance to regain the territory lost by Russia at the Treaty of Breast Litovsk. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

9 China and Japan, 1912–45 (a) Explain why the Japanese army occupied Manchuria in 1931. [10] (b) To what extent was the increasing support for the Chinese Communist Party in the 1930s a result of the policies of Chiang Kai-shek? [20]

Mark scheme: 9(a) Explain why the Japanese army occupied Manchuria in 1931. 10 Indicative content • Their actions were designed to place the civilian government in an untenable position and to force its hand. • Need for more resources in the wake of the Wall Street Crash/Great Depression. • Chance to expand at the expense of a weak and divided China. • Part of their anti-western strategy in the face of perceived maltreatment at the hands of the western powers. Accept any other valid responses. 9(b) To what extent was the increasing support for the Chinese Communist 20 Party in the 1930s a result of the policies of Chiang Kai-shek? Indicative content Discussion of Chiang’s policies might how Chiang, as head of the new Nationalist government, stood committed to a program of social reform, but most of it remained on paper, partly because his control of the country remained precarious. provincial warlords, whom he had neutralized rather than crushed, still disputed his authority. Corruption and lack of direction within the government prevented any significant reforms from taking place. A series of wars took place in western China, including the Kumul Rebellion, the Sino-Tibetan War, and the Soviet Invasion of Xinjiang. Although the central government was nominally in control of the entire country during this period, large areas of China remained under the semi-autonomous rule of local warlord. There continued to be foot-dragging and even outright defiance, as in the Fujian Rebellion of 1933–34. All of these provided opportunities for the CCP to build support as the major alternative to the KMT Discussion of other factors might consider the communists posed a major threat, having withdrawn to rural strongholds and formed their own army and government. This put them in a strong position to take advantage of the failures of Chiang’s government especially amongst the rural peasantry. The war against Japan saw a further erosion of support and the communist use or guerrilla tactics won support as it was seen as a postie response to the Japanese that kept their influence confined to the cities and coastal regions. the KMT was seen as having retreated from confrontation having been defeated in the early campaigns of 1937/8. After 1940, conflicts between the Kuomintang and Communists became more frequent in the areas not under Japanese control. The Communists expanded their influence wherever opportunities presented themselves through mass organizations, administrative reforms and the land–and tax-reform measures favouring the peasants and through the spread of their organizational network. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on How well was France governed in the period 1793–99?