Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2023 Oct/Nov Paper 4 · Variant 1

1 Assess the extent to which Mussolini’s regime received popular support. [30]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 Assess the extent to which Mussolini’s regime received popular 30 support. Agreement with the idea of popular support could relate to the limited nature of opposition to the regime, with examples such as the Communist Party and Justice and Liberty having limited scope and impact. The success of propaganda and the cult of personality might also be used in agreement. Reference might be made to use of the mass media, radio, posters, rallies and education. Mussolini’s popularity might also be explained through support for the re-establishment of Italy as a strong nation, emphasised through foreign policy success such as in Abyssinia, or sporting success such as the 1934 and 1938 World Cup victories. Italian people’s enthusiasm for many of the activities offered by the OND might also be used in support, as might the Lateran Treaties and the Concordat of 1929 which were used to gain the support of the Catholic Church and its members. The scale of repression might be argued to indicate that not all Italians willingly supported the regime. The OVRA secret police relied upon a vast network of informants and agents. The Special Tribunals were used to try minor political crimes. About 10 000 political prisoners were kept in internal exile on islands such as Lipari and Lampedusa. There was little active opposition to the regime, but the degree of enthusiastic support is less certain. It could be argued that genuine popularity peaked with the victory in Abyssinia in 1936 and began to decline in the late 1930s. The introduction of anti- Semitic policies began to alienate the population and the response to the Reform of Customs in the late 1930s also indicates a growing divide between the regime and the general population.

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

2 ‘It was the failings of Stalin’s rivals that best explain his rise to power by 1929.’ Discuss this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 2 ‘It was the failings of Stalin’s rivals that best explain his rise to power by 30 1929.’ Discuss this view. Factors used to support the argument might include how Trotsky was perceived by many within the party as arrogant and high-minded and did not develop any power base. He found it difficult to establish his authority among colleagues through persuasion. He was unwilling and unable to become involved in political intrigue, making concessions and alliances. He and other leading Bolsheviks also seriously underestimated Stalin and therefore saw no need to treat him as a rival for leadership. They perceived him as a mediocrity and as an unsophisticated administrator. Members of the Politburo also refused to publish Lenin’s Testament, which would have seriously harmed Stalin’s reputation, given Lenin’s criticism of him. However, the document also criticised Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev and so it was suppressed. Counterarguments might include arguments about Stalin’s own personal abilities, in particular how he was politically skilful and used cunning to advance his own position. He understood the importance of administrative roles such as General Secretary, his role in Politburo and control of party organisation and membership. He was able to appoint supports to key roles and employ patronage to ensure that he had built up a loyal base within the party. Stalin was also popular with the members, as a rare example of a true proletarian with long service in the party, unlike Trotsky. He also supervised the Lenin Enrolment which filled the party with young urban workers, less likely to be persuaded by theoretical arguments used by his opponents. His policies were popular with party members and he seemed to understand their desires. Socialism in One Country appealed to party members’ sense of nationalism.

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

3 ‘Terror was the most important factor in maintaining Nazi control of Germany in the period 1933–39.’ Discuss. [30]

Mark scheme: 3 ‘Terror was the most important factor in maintaining Nazi control of 30 Germany in the period 1933–39.’ Discuss. The regime’s use of terror and oppression were successful in silencing potential opponents. Reference could be made to the use of the SA, SS, Gestapo, SD, concentration camps to explain this factor. The use of terror in suppressing communists in 1933 following the Reichstag Fire and the SS’s role in purging the SA in the Night of the Long Knives are also relevant examples. Other factors that may be considered include the widespread nature of propaganda could be explained as a factor which helped to consolidate Nazi control and persuaded many of the success of the Nazi regime. References could be made to examples, such as the control of the media, newspapers or radio, rallies such as those at Nuremberg, or sporting events such as the 1936 Olympic Games. The apparent success of Nazi policies could also be considered, notably economic developments, such as the rapid decrease in unemployment and the creation of major public works schemes, for instance the autobahns. Foreign policy success in rebuilding German military strength and in defying the Allies over aspects of the Treaty of Versailles might also be used. Responses may also discuss the apparent legality of Hitler’s rise to power, and the creation of a dictatorship through the Enabling Act might also be used as an argument and could be allied to the lack of a tradition of ‘loyal’ opposition in Germany.

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

4 Evaluate the extent to which social welfare policies improved the lives of the British people in the period 1919–39. [30]

Mark scheme: 4 Evaluate the extent to which social welfare policies improved the lives of 30 the British people in the period 1919–39. In 1918 government support for the poor was based upon the Victorian Poor Laws, such as the workhouse, and the Liberal welfare reforms of the early twentieth century. The role of the state expanded in the inter-war period to develop the availability of welfare further. In 1920 Unemployment Act extended welfare by increasing the numbers of people covered from 4 million to 11 million and increased sums payable, although they remained low compared to earnings. The state was now funding unemployment through a dole system rather than relying on a self-funding insurance scheme. The 1931 National Economy Act introduced a means test for unemployment benefits to reduce the overall bill in the face of greater demand during the Depression. Those who worked occasional days could no longer claim benefits and so work of this nature was no longer viable. Claims had to be renewed for six months further payments required a means test. Families faced working age children moving out of the family home so that benefits were not stopped. The 1934 Unemployment Act continued to distinguish between short-term and long-term unemployed. The 10% cut in benefits for the first six months was reversed, but a cut in payments after this was brought in, leading to protests and a suspension. The 1925 Pensions Act also provided some benefit, enabling contributors to receive their pension at 65 rather than 70. Housing Acts in both the 1920s and 1930s led to the building of millions of local authority homes available for relatively cheap rents and improved lives considerably. There was clearly an expansion in the state’s role which improved the lives of many. It became accepted that it was the state’s responsibility to help the poorest. Although Lloyd George’s promise of a ‘land fit for heroes’ did not come to pass, millions benefitted through better housing. However, the means test caused misery and the system was not strong enough to cope with the increased demand in the early 1930s.

More questions on Why was there such extensive dissatisfaction with the peace settlements of 1919–20?

5 Analyse how far Eisenhower’s domestic policies met the needs of the American people. [30]

Mark scheme: 5 Analyse how far Eisenhower’s domestic policies met the needs of the 30 American people. Much will depend on what groups are considered and what responses take to be their needs. It could be considered that by encouraging liberal capitalism and improving infrastructure such as highways and by being enterprise friendly with generally low taxes Eisenhower met the needs pf a stable and prosperous suburban white America. More critical views might point to enduring inequalities and limited support for civil rights despite a few areas of progress. He pursued a policy sometimes called Modern Republicanism. The modern aspects helped Americans who had benefited from the New Deal and the Fair Deal by not returning to the pre-Roosevelt era and maintaining social security. He set up a new Department of Health, Education and Welfare, extended social security to the self-employed and increased the minimum wage. The economic growth of the 1950s helped prosperity and the Federal Aid Highway Act was a considerable public works scheme creating 40 000 miles of interstate highways. Combined with a high level of federal military spending, federal policy created jobs and expanded infrastructure to help economic growth, Eisenhower did not institute tax cuts before the budget was balanced despite conservative pressure. The confidence of the Eisenhower era was reflected in population growth, urban and suburban developments, consumerism and industrial and technological growth. How much was a result of Eisenhower’s domestic policies can be argued but he did not retreat from federal expenditure and maintained social security and his administration saw a growth in unionised labour. Critics point out the regional variations and the persistent inequality and it could be argued that key groups did not benefit – African Americans remained economically disadvantaged and the continuation of termination policies towards Native Americans ending their special status and attempting to integrate them led to hardship. There was little done for female equality and the administration was socially conservative. Caution characterised Eisenhower’s policy towards the ongoing influence of McCarthy but he resisted investigation into White House Staff and supported opposition to campaigns against the army. Reluctant to stand up to the Red Scare too openly, Eisenhower worked against it behind the scenes to the benefit of groups in the US vulnerable to attacks. The government was hostile to immigration and in, 1954, Eisenhower launched Operation Wetback in response to increasing illegal immigration to the United States. As many as three million illegal immigrants had crossed into the U.S. Eisenhower opposed this movement, believing that it lowered the wages of U.S. workers. The Immigration and Naturalization Service sent about 80 000 immigrants back to Mexico. On Civil Rights, Eisenhower’s instincts were conservative but he saw it as his duty to back the Brown judgements and sent troops to Little Rock in 1957 in a well-publicised act of enforcement. Relatively limited action was taken to ensure that desegregation was put into practice, however. There was new Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 which established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department and a Civil Rights Commission to hear testimony about voting rights abuses. Although both acts were much weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since 1875. African Americans got some support but major inequalities and key issues about voting were not tackled.

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

6 ‘The ‘imperial presidency’ no longer existed in the 1970s.’ Evaluate this claim. [30]

Mark scheme: 6 ‘The ‘imperial presidency’ no longer existed in the 1970s.’ Evaluate this 30 claim. Answers might define the term by considering the relative powers and importance of the executive and congress and by noting the growth in size of presidential staffs and authority wielded, so that the scope of federal authority generally and presidents in particulars increased. The term ‘imperial presidency’ comes from the early 1970s. Aspects of a growing presidential authority in the twentieth century could be seen as offering a distinct agenda for legislation, taking foreign policy decisions independently and sanctioning military action. Executive orders were used to make important changes. Thus, Nixon inherited a presidency whose power had increased through the need to respond to emergencies of war and massive economic depression. His actions had aspects of this imperial presidency by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress; by claiming executive privilege to avoid disclosing to Congress information; but broadening the role and power of officials and by taking vital decisions such as bombing in Southeast Asia without the approval of Congress. So in the first part of the 1970s the statement could be challenged. However, with the abuse of power, Congress managed to claw back authority and it might be see that Watergate marked a decisive change. The Imperial presidency was weakened by the War Powers Act of 1973 restricting the power of the president to commit forces in foreign combat for more than 90 days without Congressional approval. Congress provided public financing of presidential elections, public disclosure of sources of funding, limits on private campaign contributions and spending, and to enforce campaign finance laws by an independent Federal Election Commission. Branch. Congress required the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate accusations of illegal activities. A Congressional Budget Office was set up, and Congress forbade a president to impound funds without its approval. To open government to public scrutiny, Congress opened more committee deliberations and enacted the Freedom of Information Act: the declassification of government documents could be demanded by press and public. However, the extent of the assault on the imperial presidency can be questioned The War Powers Act has never been invoked. Campaign financing reform did not fully restrict special interests influencing with politicians or the capacity of the very rich to outspend opponents.

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

7 ‘Economic policy in the 1980s had only a limited effect on living standards.’ Discuss. [30]

Mark scheme: 7 ‘Economic policy in the 1980s had only a limited effect on living 30 standards.’ Discuss. The theory of Reagan’s Trickle-Down economics was that the problems of the US by 1979 – stagnant growth, unemployment and inflation needed to be met by reducing the role of government and encouraging enterprise by greater consumer spending, investment and free enterprise. Supply Side economics have been controversial. Reagan cut corporate taxes from 48 to 34% and higher income taxation from 70 to 28%. However, it was harder to implement the complementary policy of reduction of spending as foreign policy depended on high levels of defence spending and it was too risky to slash social security. The initial effects of government policy was recession as high interest meant a rise in demand for the dollar and higher prices for exports. However, supporters claimed that the Dow Jones industrial average rose 14 times and employment grew, with 40 million jobs added to the economy, The 1980s were a time of investor and consumer confidence even if debt rose rapidly. Whether the economic growth derived from trickle down policy has been debated. Critics have claimed that less than 10% pf job creation derived from the tax cuts. Companies did not do much to meet inequalities of reward and often used wealth for stock buybacks for the benefit of shareholders. It has been argued that relief for lower income workers would have had more impact on living standards. Though the standard of living rose, its growth was no faster than during 1950–1980. Income inequality increased. The rate of poverty at the end of Reagan's term was the same as in 1980. There was an increase in inequality. Changes in tax policy helped increase inequality more than poverty, but regional pockets of hardship remained and there was a big distinction between groups in service industries which benefited from economic growth and groups in depressed areas and many ethnic minorities did not experience improvement in living standards. Broad social and economic factors were acting to exacerbate income differences and making it harder for families to stay out of poverty. The changes of the 1980s tended to increase their effect.

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

8 ‘Changing policies towards Vietnam between 1963 and 1979 are best explained by shifts in US public opinion.’ Discuss this view. [30] Section C: International history, 1945–92

Mark scheme: 8 ‘Changing policies towards Vietnam between 1963 and 1979 are best 30 explained by shifts in US public opinion.’ Discuss this view. The shift in public opinion from general approval of fighting against Communism and reacting strongly to the supposed attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin to a growing opposition to conscription and concerns about losses, the way the war was being conducted and the chance of victory were clearly an important element in shift of policy from tentative commitment to much more extensive military intervention, from defending South Vietnam to attacking the North and then to Vietnamization and finally withdrawal. However, foreign opinion, the actions of the USSR, purely military developments and political concerns also played a part. Possible changes might include the escalation under Kennedy from sending 400 troops and authorising covert operations against the Viet Cong in May 1961 to greater military action such as spraying agent orange, more troops and political involvement in the support of a coup in November 1963. The motivation here was concern about the spread of communism, the inability of South Vietnamese forces to cope and the unpopularity of Diem. The political imperative for Kennedy and for Johnson was to avoid losing Vietnam to communism and being seen as weak Democratic presidents in the tradition of Truman who lost China by their Republican opponents. Given residual popular anti-communism in the US it was hard to withdraw. A change of policy towards greater commitment resulted from the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 leading to a congressional resolution. The support of the USSR seemed to confirm that the US was constraining the spread of international communism. The problems facing South Vietnamese on the ground led to a greater reliance on the use of air power from February 1965 including targets in North Vietnam. The landing of combat troops in March 1965 was a major development and in July 1965 Johnson called for 50 000 more ground troops and increases the draft. This change of policy indicated a confidence in military victory and hopes for a stable political regime. The limited successes and the startling increase in troop numbers to 400 000 by mid-1966 begin to cause unrest. The large-scale protests in the US in 1967 and increasing concern about bombing and damage to civilians in world opinion became a factor to consider. The 1968 Tet offensive shook US confidence in victory and was influential on public opinion but the Mai Lai Massacre in March 1968 led to a wave of anti-war feeling in the US resulting in a scaling down of bombing and Johnson’s decision not to stand for re- election. The heavy losses at Hamburger Hill in 1969 is a factor in a change of policy by Nixon towards Vietnamization. The unpopularity of the war, the heavy losses, world opinion and hostility to the draft leads to a reduction of US forces from a peak of 549 000 to 69 000 by 1972. The bombing of Cambodia is a development linked to the reduction of reliance on ground forces; further intensive bombing tried force a negotiated peace. The Kent State shootings and ongoing protests and more military failures showed the difficulties of sustaining even a Vietnamization policy. In January 1973 the policy shifts to a negotiated peace in Paris and then to withdraw.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

9 ‘Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence had little effect on US–Soviet relations.’ Evaluate this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 9 ‘Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence had little effect on US– 30 Soviet relations.’ Evaluate this view. Khrushchev never intended peaceful co-existence to end competition between the two superpowers, merely that it would be peaceful competition. Both sides remained suspicious of each other’s ideological stance and their relationship remained unstable. Eisenhower while prepared to enter into dialogue, remained fiercely opposed to communism. His ‘New Look’ foreign policy included the use of greater nuclear weapons, a policy of massive retaliation and brinkmanship. Thus, while dialogue between the two superpowers improved, there were areas of disagreement which continued to cause tension. In 1955 Khrushchev set up the Warsaw Pact with plans to use nuclear weapons against NATO if there was a war. Khrushchev also rejected Eisenhower’s ‘Open Skies’ proposal at the Geneva Summit in 1955. In addition, the United States was suspicious of Khrushchev’s intentions, especially after he sent troops into Hungary in 1956 and brutally crushed the revolts there. In 1957 the Soviets launched their first intercontinental ballistic missile which created US fears of a missile gap between the USSR and the United States. The USSR also began the space race with the United States with the launch of Sputnik 1, the first satellite, and in 1961 Yuri Gagarin became the first astronaut to orbit the earth. The United States was determined not to be left behind. The problem of Berlin also caused tension; many East Germans had fled into the West from East Berlin and in November 1958, Khrushchev announced that unless the West removed its forces from West Berlin within six months, he would allow the East Germans to control the access routes. President Eisenhower and the West stood firm, and Khrushchev eventually backed down. A summit meeting in Paris in 1960 was stopped by the shooting down of a U2 spy plane over Moscow and in 1961 Khrushchev made the same threat over Berlin. However, after Kennedy’s ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ speech which confirmed that West Berlin would not be deserted, Khrushchev ordered the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. The Cuban Crisis of 1962 saw the two sides on the brink of nuclear war. However, Khrushchev’s adoption of the policy of peaceful coexistence with the West alongside his de-Stalinisation policy signalled a thaw in the Cold War. In 1955 he agreed to negotiate an end to the post-war occupation of Austria and allow a neutral country to be created. He told Tito, the Yugoslav leader, that ‘there are different roads to communism’. He also called for a reduction in defence expenditures and cut the size of the Soviet armed forces. On February 24, 1956 at the Communist Party’s Twentieth Congress Khrushchev made a speech denouncing Stalin. It became known as the ‘secret speech’ as it was read in a closed discussion, but the US State Department soon attained a copy. It seemed as if there would be a relaxation of Cold War tensions. In the late 1950s, the United States and the USSR initiated a cultural exchange programme and in 1959, Khrushchev visited the United States briefly meeting Eisenhower at Camp David. Predictions of improved future relations were reported which praised ‘the spirit of Camp David’ showing both superpowers were willing to enter into dialogue. In the United States both Eisenhower and Dulles realised that a dialogue needed to be established with the USSR because of the increased threat from nuclear weapons. Eisenhower wanted to lower conventional arms purchases and concentrate on nuclear weapons. The possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction made peaceful coexistence more attractive as it would reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation.

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

10 Assess the impact of the Vietnam War on Sino-US relations during the Cold War. [30]

Mark scheme: 10 Assess the impact of the Vietnam War on Sino-US relations during the 30 Cold War. When the Chinese communists defeated the Nationalists in 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the United States turned from allies to bitter enemies. The right wing of the Republican Party refused to give the PRC the UN Security Council seat, or even to talk with it for the next two decades. The United States gave economic and military aid to South Vietnam, while the USSR and the PRC offered assistance to North Vietnam. The Chinese presence in North Vietnam was known to US officials and President Johnson ruled out the possibility of a ground invasion of North Vietnam for fear of repeating the Korean War. However, the disastrous outcome of the Vietnam War for the United States provided the opportunity for rapprochement; its containment policy was in tatters and the PRC could be useful in helping to contain the USSR. Johnson escalated the US military presence in Vietnam from 1964 to 1967 but the Tet Offensive in 1968 turned Americans against the war. When Johnson decided to wind down the war in 1968, the PRC felt that the United States was no longer interested in expanding in Asia. In his inaugural address, Nixon stated that the two countries were entering an era of negotiation after an era of confrontation. From 1969 Nixon reduced the levels of combat troops and without combat support Saigon finally fell in 1975. The United States still saw the USSR as its main adversary but in the aftermath of the war and at a time of relative economic decline, it found its ability to use force severely restricted. The PRC and the United States could provide mutual assurance and undermine the influence of the USSR. Thus, the Sino-US relationship that emerged was, for the remainder of the Cold War, mainly a strategic partnership. It was not the impact of the war alone that motivated the PRC as its evaluation of US and Soviet imperialism changed. After the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the PRC regarded the USSR as the leading imperialist country; the two countries were already on poor terms due to the Sino-Soviet split. Moscow’s announcement of the Brezhnev Doctrine justifying military intervention in socialist states led to the PRC arguing that the USSR was now its main ideological enemy. In addition, Mao’s ‘continuous revolution’. idea was losing momentum in the PRC’s foreign policy. The Chinese understood that the Soviets viewed the Chinese version of communism under Mao as a perversion of socialism and feared an invasion. Sino-Soviet border conflicts of 1969 raised the possibility of Soviet intervention to attempt to overthrow Mao’s regime. Ping-pong diplomacy began in 1971 and on 15 July Nixon revealed that he had accepted an invitation to visit the PRC in the following year. In 1972 the Shanghai Communiqué was issued with both sides pledging to work towards normalisation of relations. The PRC benefited greatly from the rapprochement with the United States which increased its security for the rest of the Cold War. In 1977, President Carter reaffirmed the goals of the Shanghai Communiqué. The United States transferred diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing; it reiterated that there is only one the PRC and that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. Deng Xiaoping became the PRC’s leader in the late 1970s; he wished to combine successful reform and openness to capitalistic international economy with the continued one-party rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

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

11 Evaluate the nature and extent of UN peacekeeping in Africa. [30]

Mark scheme: 11 Evaluate the nature and extent of UN peacekeeping in Africa. 30 With the establishment of the UN and adoption of the Charter in 1945 many people in Africa became aware of their fundamental rights and felt empowered to work for self-determination. The UN General Assembly enabled them to express their political aspirations. However, newly independent states lacked strong democratic institutions and became areas of civil conflicts whereby rival ethnic, religious or other groups fought for access to power and resources. Aware of the threat such conflicts posed to regional peace and security, the UN sought to address them. However, the defiant attitude of some groups towards the UN could be because it was perceived as generally weak with peacekeepers often seen as passive. UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles; the consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate. The UN’s first peace-keeping mission was in the Congo in 1960. It was originally mandated to provide the Congolese Government with the military and technical assistance it required following the collapse of many essential services and the military intervention by Belgian troops. However, ONUC became embroiled in a chaotic internal situation and had to assume responsibilities which went beyond normal peacekeeping duties. The instructions of the Security Council to ONUC were strengthened early in 1961 after the assassination in Katanga province of former Prime Minster Patrice Lumumba. It was to protect the Congo from outside interference, particularly by evacuating advisers from Katanga and foreign mercenaries. However, the UN failed to remain impartial and at the end of 1962 the UN was in the hands of the Americans who alone could provide support for the ground forces who finally forced Tshombe to flee from Katanga in December 1962. In February 1963, after Katanga had been reintegrated into the Congo, a phasing out of the peace-keeping force began. In January 1989 the UN Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM I) was sent to Angola. The war was a power struggle between the Communist People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola and the anti-communist Total Independence of Angola. UNAVEM II was sent in May 1991. Elections were held but were rejected and violence escalated. The mission transitioned to UNIVAM III. UN Operation in Somalia 1 (UNISOM) began in April 1992 during the Somali Civil War. The violence continued to escalate making it difficult to deliver relief aid. However, blame for the failure of UNISOM I can be attributed to the UN itself; troops often refused to accept orders from UN commanders before checking with their own governments, and communication difficulties caused delays. UN humanitarian agencies failed to implement the relief programme or to show the leadership expected of them. The UN created a second operation, UNITAF, a task force, to help UNOSOM I protect and distribute humanitarian aid. In 1993 both were replaced by UNOSOM II. However, it put military and security objectives before political, economic and social ones and turned into a peace enforcement mission. The UN also played a crucial role in the decolonisation of Namibia and the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. It was the combined action of the international community through the UN and African states within the OAU that eventually led to South Africa’s withdrawal from Namibia and the termination of its apartheid policy. The Namibian and the South African peoples and their liberation movements led by SWAPO and the ANC also played their parts.

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