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

1 Read the extract and then answer the question. Whether Austria would have pressed on to the destruction of Serbia without its blank cheque from Germany is still a matter of controversy. Content removed due to copyright restrictions. Landlocked Germany could only expand at the expense of its neighbours and in so doing destroy a European order that had been peacefully established for a hundred years. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the origins of the First World War to explain your answer. [40]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 The Origins of the First World War 40 Interpretation/Approach The main interpretation is that the historian blames Germany (i) for not trying to avoid war, and (ii) for actively desiring war. Showing complete understanding of the Interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects. This is an extract that considers the nature of German culpability. Whilst Germany did not intend to cause war in 1914, it must still bear most blame because its behaviour was careless of the risk of war occurring. Germany is seen as a restless and dangerous power, willing to assert its power against its competitors, and accepting the assumption that war, sooner or later, would happen. Instead of trying to avoid this, many in Germany welcomed it. This is not an interpretation that focuses particularly on the course of events in 1914 but is concerned more with explaining why ‘the German Question’ made war more or less inevitable. Glossary: Early post-WW1 interpretations tended to blame Germany, but quickly a reaction against this occurred, with a variety of interpretations blaming other nations. This may be termed revisionism. The turning point in the historiography was Fischer’s work of the early 1960s which went back to blaming Germany – sometimes known as anti-revisionism. Since then, there has been a vast variety of interpretations, looking at the importance of culture, individuals, contingent factors etc, with no clear consensus, though most historians would still place a significant burden of responsibility on Germany. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

2 Read the extract and then answer the question. That Hitler gave an oral order sometime in the spring or summer of 1941 for the overall extermination of the Jews of Europe is highly probable, but cannot be proven with absolute certainty on the basis of existing documents. Content removed due to copyright restrictions. But many of those who had laughed would not do so anymore. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Holocaust to explain your answer. [40] Section C: The origins and development of the Cold War

Mark scheme: 2 The Holocaust 40 Interpretation/Approach The main interpretation is that the historian blames Hitler (i) for his long-held desire to destroy the Jews, and (ii) for his close involvement in driving Jewish policy. Showing complete understanding of the Interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian recognises that Hitler did not have genocidal policies from the start, but stresses that only circumstances made Jewish policy a’ twisted road’. From the earliest opportunity Hitler pursued destructive policies towards the Jews, and it merely needed the opportunity for this to be escalated into genocide. The desire to destroy the Jews was always present and Hitler played a central role in developing Jewish policy. Despite the fact that Hitler’s policies were often contradictory to his pronouncements, the persecution of the Jews grew ever more severe, and always left open the possibility of worse to come. Once the right moment arrived, Hitler’s genocidal intent could become policy. The historian’s approach is clearly intentionalist, and this will be the only ‘label’ in L5 and L6. If a synthesis of intentionalism with another approach is argued, then it could be L4 if the intentionalism was properly explained. Functionalism or structuralism will be L3 max. Glossary: Candidates may use some/all of the following terms: Intentionalism – interpretations which assume that Hitler/the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews from the start. Structuralism – interpretations which argue that it was the nature of the Nazi state that produced genocide. There was no coherent plan but the chaotic competition for Hitler’s approval between different elements of the leadership produced a situation in which genocide could occur. Functionalism sees the Holocaust as an unplanned, ad hoc response to wartime developments in Eastern Europe, when Germany conquered areas with large Jewish populations. Candidates may also refer to synthesis interpretations, i.e. interpretations which show characteristics of more than one of the above. What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

3 Read the extract and then answer the question. A prominent characteristic of Stalin was his exceptional suspiciousness. He was constantly afraid of almost everyone around him. In the post-war period, there were no more mass purges in the Soviet Union but continual terror, as in his old age he became if anything even more paranoid. In dealings with foreign powers, he was likewise always ready to believe that any proposal concealed an evil intention, that any compromise was a trap. Few of his colleagues could be trusted to act abroad, and no one, even the faithful Molotov, was given any freedom of action. Soviet embassies became closed and barred fortresses. As a result, negotiation was difficult and usually pointless, and contacts with the uncontrolled outside world were to be avoided as far as possible. Normal contacts which might have made friends for the Soviet Union were despised, as were trade links which might have won some influence. Flattered by all around him, Stalin was not disposed to appreciate unpleasant realities thrust at him by foreign powers. Given the lack of honest and open discussion in his regime, any myth could pass for truth. Even though Soviet diplomats often prepared themselves well, the Americans were continually amazed at how misinformed their Russian counterparts were about the United States. Far from appreciating the potential utility of the United Nations, the Stalinists reduced their already slight participation in it and hardly used it except as a forum to attack the West. Aside from its satellites, the Soviet Union was friendless in the world. Caution and pressure against the outside, sharply contrasting the peaceful, socialist and progressive against the capitalist, oppressive and imperialistic, helped to consolidate the Soviet sphere. That it made impossible any further expansion was of secondary importance, as Stalin merely concentrated on holding on to the great gains already made. If the rest of the world reacted with hostility, this was taken to prove how right Stalin was. In the Cold War, the ageing Stalin raised intolerance and isolationism to a new height. The capitalist world was attacked as never before. The unholy outside world belonged to the class enemy. Anyone who was not wholeheartedly with him was against him. Soviet diplomacy and propaganda were accordingly often ignorant and rude whilst at the same time unscrupulous and superficially clever. This intolerant approach made ineffective even apparently reasonable Soviet initiatives for the reduction of tension and deprived the Soviet Union of any credit it might have deserved. Stalin’s policy in the Greek Civil War was moderate and prudent, but uncompromising attitudes and language made it seem hostile. To a very large extent the image of Stalin as fiercely aggressive was created by his violence of language rather than deeds: from insults against opponents rather than real injuries inflicted. It was very hard for such a government as Stalin’s, arrogant and tolerating no dissent at home, to see that mild and indirect tactics would usually have been far more effective, particularly for the security of the Soviet Union, which was its foremost concern. However, the overall effect of Stalin’s suspicion and isolationism was to reduce his interest in foreign policies. It would have been foolish indeed for the Soviet Union, far weaker than the United States, to be really aggressive. It was willing to brag and bluster and try the patience of the Americans, but Soviet leaders were well aware of their military limitations. Even the first Soviet nuclear explosion, in the autumn of 1949, was treated very carefully and with uncharacteristic lack of boasting, probably to minimise chances of a dangerous American reaction. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Cold War to explain your answer. [40]

Mark scheme: 3 The Origins and Development of the Cold War 40 Interpretation/Approach The main interpretation is that the historian blames Stalin (i.e. not the Soviet Union) (i) because of his personality, and (ii) for his obstructionism being harmful/ unnecessary/unwise (must be clear that Stalin is blameworthy for this). Showing complete understanding of the Interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects. This is an interpretation that focuses on Stalin. It sees him as obstructive and paranoid, at home as much as abroad, and deliberately closing off the USSR from the outside world. Stalin’s personality and approach made the Cold War more intense, and that this was not to the benefit of the USSR. The harsh, unyielding image this gave him, often contrary to the actual policies he pursued, made it harder for these policies to succeed. This picture of Stalin, with its stress on the importance of his personality, is characteristic of a post-post-revisionist approach. This ‘label’ would be the only one acceptable at L6. Traditionalism would be less persuasive but could be L5 if Stalin’s blame was properly argued. Arguing for post-revisionism would be L4 at best (i.e. if Stalin’s blame was properly argued), but revisionism would represent L3 misunderstanding. Glossary: Traditional/Orthodox interpretations of the Cold War were generally produced early after WW2. They blame the Soviet Union and Stalin’s expansionism for the Cold War. Revisionist historians challenged this view and shifted more of the focus onto the United States, generally through an economic approach which stressed the alleged aim of the US to establish its economic dominance over Europe. Post-revisionists moved towards a more balanced view in which elements of blame were attached to both sides. Since the opening of the Soviet archives post-1990 there has been a shift to attributing prime responsibility to Stalin – a post-post-revisionist stance which often seems very close to the traditional view, but which often places great importance on ideology. What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.

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