Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2024 May/June Paper 4 · Variant 3

1 Analyse the effectiveness of Mussolini’s policies on women and young people. [30]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 Analyse the effectiveness of Mussolini’s policies on women and young 30 people. The question requires specific focus on policies towards women and young people. The intention of the question is not for candidates to discuss the impact of wider policies such as propaganda or economic policies on these groups. Responses may discuss how Fascism mirrored Catholicism in emphasising the traditional role for women of wife and mother. Education and propaganda emphasised these values and the Battle for Births set out women’s main contribution to Italian society – to help to increase the population from 40 million to 60 million by 1950 to boost Italy’s military strength and prestige and to provide colonists for its growing empire. Financial inducements such as marriage loans and tax exemptions were introduced, whilst bachelors were taxed more heavily. Healthcare arrangements for mothers and babies were improved. Propaganda was used to encourage women to stay at home and it was emphasised that it was women’s duty to play their part in this way. Restrictions were placed on how many women could be employed in some sectors of the economy. The marriage rate failed to increase and the birth rate declined until 1936, not increasing much after this. Women remained heavily involved in the workplace (making up 41% of agricultural workers and 33% of industrial workers in 1936) and so both key policies relating to females failed. Discussion might also consider Fascist policies towards the young and focus on both education and youth groups. There may also be discussion of the ONB and its aims and activities, including military training, ideological study and camps. There might be recognition of the scale of attendance; even when it was made compulsory many young people, particularly in the south, did not attend. There might also be some comment on the role of the Catholic Church in limiting the influence of Fascist youth groups and the speed at which genuine support for the regime melted away from 1943.

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

2 Assess the reasons for Stalin’s policy of ‘building socialism in one country’. [30]

Mark scheme: 2 Assess the reasons for Stalin’s policy of ‘building socialism in one 30 country’. This question demands an explanation of ‘socialism in one country’ and an assessment why Stalin introduced it. It is likely to be linked to the power struggle and Stalin’s ultimate victory. Candidates might place this policy in the context of Lenin’s death and the power vacuum which was created as a result. However, it is not intended to be a question about how Stalin came to power. There could be discussion of how the Soviet Union had become the sole Communist state by the 1920s and a discussion of how Trotsky and Stalin’s views on this situation differed. There may be reference to Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution and the importance of supporting working class revolutions in industrialised European nations to help the USSR to survive in a hostile world. There might also be some consideration of how Trotsky envisaged the development of Soviet society along more ‘socialist’ lines. Stalin’s policy platform of ‘socialism in one country’ was based on the argument that world revolution was not likely in the short-term and that the Soviet people should consolidate the revolution without external support, appealing to patriotic and nationalist sentiments particularly within Russia. The creation of a superior society would prove that socialism was ‘better’ than capitalism. Responses may choose to discuss how far Stalin used his programme to attack and defeat Trotsky and help to secure his own path to power. The appeal of his policy with party members, including the new influx of young working-class recruits following the Lenin Enrolment, also helped his ascent to power. An argument should be made that this policy was tactical and was an example of Stalin portraying himself as a patriotic leader of the Russian people. Responses might also advance the view that Stalin’s ideas were based on a pragmatic and realistic view of the prospect of world revolution and that the avoidance of conflict with the west while the Soviet Union built up its strength was crucial in ensuring its survival. There might be some discussion of how the policy complemented the NEP in helping the nation to recover from the ravages of the Civil War.

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

3 Analyse the reasons for the Nazi persecution of Jews and other minorities. [30]

Mark scheme: 3 Analyse the reasons for Nazi persecution of Jews and other minorities. 30 The concept of the volksgemeinschaft was an ideal community of healthy and hard-working Aryans. Those who did not belong should be excluded from the community, whether their unfitness derived from ideological, biological or social reasons. Nazi ideas about eugenics and racial hygiene led to persecution of different groups in Germany and, from 1939, in other parts of Europe. The Nazis took on ideas of Social Darwinism to develop a hierarchy of races – with Aryans from Northern Europe at the top and Jews and Slavs at the bottom – the so-called untermenschen. Jews had faced persecution for centuries, across Europe. Their religion and customs were different, the idea that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus had flourished and there was often jealousy of any economic success achieved. These ideas were taken up by Hitler, who had first encountered them in Vienna before World War One. Jews were blamed and used as scapegoats for military defeat and economic woes, such as employment following the Great Depression. The Nazis combined nationalism and racism. Mentally and physically disabled people were subject to sterilisation and euthanasia. Those with hereditary diseases were considered to weaken the Aryan race as burdens on the community who could not make positive contributions and who posed a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. In 1933 the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring led to 400 000 sterilisations. The T4 programme to kill babies with mental or physical disabilities was begun in 1939. The term asocial was broadly applied to those who did not fit into the Volksgemeinschaft and might be said to include the homeless, alcoholics, habitual criminals, sex workers etc. They were considered to be unwilling to work and to contribute to society and to be unworthy of inclusion in the Reich. Thousands were sent to camps. Homosexuals were persecuted because they offended the traditionally minded in German society and were not likely to contribute to increasing the birth rate in the country. Thousands were arrested and sent to concentration camps with some being subject to castration and medical experiments. Roma communities were also persecuted by the Nazis for racial reasons and because their itinerant lifestyle did not fit into the ideal German society. They were viewed as inferior and a threat to the purity of the Aryan race and were sent to camps. Members of religious groups who were unable to swear allegiance or to join the German armed forces were subject to persecution. Examples include Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists.

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

4 ‘The National Governments had more successes than failures between 1931 and 1939.’ Discuss. [30]

Mark scheme: 4 ‘The National Governments had more successes than failures between 30 1931 and 1939.’ Discuss. This question requires analysis of the extent to which the National Government successfully dealt with the challenges which it faced in this period. Some discussion of the formation of the National Government in 1931 as a response to the economic crisis facing the country might be made. An assessment of the National Government’s economic policies will probably include the decision to end spending cuts following the Invergordon Mutiny and to instead devalue the pound by leaving the Gold Standard, leading to pound falling to $3.40. This helped British industry by making exports more competitive. Cutting interest rates from six to two percent led to ‘cheap money’ which allowed businesses to borrow and invest and helped to fuel an increase in house construction as mortgages were cheaper. However, the Special Areas Act, passed in 1934, to channel investment into areas badly hit by the slump, was, at best, a partial success. Candidates might conclude that although there was a partial recovery by 1939, the worst affected areas of industrial Britain were still badly hit by unemployment. The National Government also faced a deteriorating international situation, being faced with the challenges of growing aggression from Italy, Japan and Nazi Germany. Baldwin might be seen to have failed initially to deal with the invasion of Abyssinia by Italy by attempting to appease Mussolini through the Hoare-Laval Pact. The rise of Hitler led to debates over rearmament, hugely unpopular with millions of people, although the increased spending from 1935 onwards helped to reduce unemployment in the iron, steel and shipbuilding industries. Appeasement of Hitler is largely associated with Chamberlain and can be argued as a failure as it placed too much trust in Hitler’s promises at Munich in 1938. However, candidates might choose to argue that it was a popular policy which bought Britain time to further rearm and to prepare for war. There might also be some comments about the effectiveness of Britain’s preparation from 1938 onwards, including plans for evacuation, gas masks, the organisation of a system of rationing and of conscription. A balanced response will require discussion of the National Government’s policies which might be judged as successes and failures and an overall judgement.

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

5 ‘Eisenhower’s election victories are best explained by economic prosperity.’ Discuss this view. [30]

Mark scheme: 5 ‘Eisenhower’s election victories are best explained by economic 30 prosperity.’ Discuss this view. The perceived economic prosperity based on consumerism, bolstered by the expansion of transport, visible in the growth of suburbs and better-equipped homes can be seen as a cause of the Republican victories. Other factors could be the reassuring presence of Ike; the ongoing impact of the Cold War; limitations in the Democrat campaigns and candidates and the willingness of the Eisenhower administration to go beyond rigid conservatism and accept a degree of change and maintain the Keynesian consensus and social policies. In 1952 it could be argued that economic prosperity was not such a significant factor as in 1956 when there was talk of ‘Eisenhower prosperity’ and when economic growth and obvious signs of consumer spending and suburban development following the end of the Korean War had expanded middle class confidence and worded fears that Republican rule would mean a return to hardship. In 1952 effective campaigning (‘I like Ike’ and a vigorous election tour was important. Though Stevenson was an impressive candidate he lacked the popular appeal of the genial ‘middle America’ Ike. The Democrat decision to choose him again in 1956 was a mistake but an important factor in raising Ike’s popular vote from 55 to 58% was the danger abroad following Suez and the Hungarian invasion and the president was a safe pair of hands for many Americans. As Republican congressional performance was much weaker than Eisenhower’s gain, his personal appeal might be seen as more important than the economic context. His moderation in not dismantling the welfare reforms or interventionist economic policy and his disavowal of McCarthy suggested a moderate conservatism which was popular, especially when Republican free-market rhetoric seemed to be justified by economic growth.

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

6 Assess how far there was greater acceptance of gay rights in the 1960s and 1970s. [30]

Mark scheme: 6 Assess how far there was greater acceptance of gay rights in the 1960s 30 and 1970s. The issue is whether changes in some aspects of the law together with the impact of activists and gay rights groups, particularly after Stonewall, made substantial inroads into what were often hostile traditional attitudes. The period saw more open discussion about the issue and with the growth of demands for other civil rights, there was more pressure for acceptance of gay rights. Illinois took the lead in repealing sodomy laws in 1961 and activist groups claimed success in operating newspapers and periodicals aimed at the LGBTQ+ community. It could be argued that advances were limited and many attitudes remained unchanged despite some changes for much of the period and that greater awareness and acceptance came with the Stonewall riots. It has been argued that debates about sexuality took on a different character after 1970 when New Yorkers marched in solidarity on the first anniversary of the Riots. The movement for greater gay rights expanded considerably in the 1970s and second wave feminism brought greater discussion and acceptance of same sex female relationships. Evidence of change might focus on some advances such as the election of Harvey Milk as the first openly gay person to gain public office in California in 1978 and the 100 000 people who marched to support gay rights in Washington in 1979, but assessing general attitudes in different states and communities may be more problematic. A 1984 study found that positive attitudes towards same sex relationships were far more common among white, female, non-religious, well-educated and politically liberal Americans. The open discrimination even in sophisticated urban areas like New York in the 1960s where bars were not allowed to serve gay customers did change.

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

7 Evaluate the consequences of ongoing budget deficits in the 1980s and early 1990s. [30]

Mark scheme: 7 Evaluate the consequences of ongoing budget deficits in the 1980s and 30 early 1990s. In economic terms, increasing federal budget deficits were held to be responsible for upward pressure on US interest rates. Falling deficits added to national savings but increased deficits meant a claim on savings and a rise in interest rates. Foreign investors were tempted to buy more US assets. The net demand for dollars rose on the foreign exchange market and this led to a rise in value in the dollar and increased the exchange rate. This made goods and services more expensive abroad and reduced the prices of foreign goods and services in the US. The value of exports fell. This led in the 1980s to an allied trade imbalance. Between 1980 and 1985, the budget deficit went from 0.6 to 4.3 and the trade deficit went from a surplus of 0.2 to a deficit of 2.3. A discussion could be sustained about the effects of this on different sectors of the US economy and society and there could be consideration of political consequences. Budget deficits were a consequence of a reduction in taxes and a continued commitment to social security and a greater expenditure on defence. Budget deficit stood at $73.8b and then rose hugely despite Republican ideas of fiscal control and limited government. By 1983 at $207bn debt amounted to 6% of GNP. By 1986 it was $211bn and by 1991 $269bn. Interest payments rose in the 1980s from 2.0% of GNP to 3.4% and there was a big increase in debt held by the public in terms of government securities. This rose from 26.8% in 1980 to 44.2% in 1990. As taxes were cut many Americans had money to invest in government bonds and so for those with spare capital there was a double benefit. Long term interest rates did fall for gilt edged investments but remained high at 9%. This increased the gap between those who could benefit and those who faced cuts in social spending in an attempt to restrict the growth of the deficit even further. These were mainly not older people but those whose benefits were likely to change and unemployment insurance was the main victim. Increased charges for servicing the deficit and a much higher level of defence spending were consequences of an acceptance of a considerable growth in debt. The 1980s saw a rise in level of defence spending after a post-Vietnam decline. The inflationary possibilities of large deficit and spending were generally managed by the Federal Reserve but there was widespread political and economic concern which Reagan and his successors were in a limited position to address.

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

Section C: International history, 1945–92

Mark scheme: 8 ‘Opposition to communist ideology was the main reason for the US 30 involvement in the Korean War.’ Discuss this view. The discussion could be about the motivation of the US to put forces into defend South Korea initially, to muster UN support for intervention and then to push into North Korea once the boundary line had been restored and to escalate the conflict. Economic and strategic motives could be set against ideology in the light of ‘the loss of China’ and concerns about the actions of the USSR in Europe. The context of US involvement might suggest the importance of ideology. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, NATO and the Berlin Airlift seemed to be a programme of Containment of communism. However, there is less evidence of US concerns about communism in Asia. There had not been a major effort to prevent the Communist victory in China and the division of Korea had been accepted along the lines of the 38 parallel. There was not a strong US military presence in South Korea and in 1948 the US had proposed a national referendum on reunification. When the North invaded, the US backed a United Nations Resolution and Truman did not support an official declaration of war by Congress. The decision to commit forces was seen as a ‘police action’. The invasion saw a reversal of US policy from the withdrawal of forces in 1948 and the implied view of the State Department under Acheson that Korea lay outside the ‘defence perimeter’. It may be that North Korea and its backers did not expect US resistance on either ideological or strategic grounds. Answers could draw a distinction between attitudes before 1950 and the reaction to the invasion. The National Security Council NSC68 analysis recommended a heavy increase in military funding and politically Truman was concerned about criticisms that he had ‘lost China’ to Communism. Domestic fears of communism were stoked by the Republicans and McCarthy. Meanwhile, the development of atomic weapons by the USSR and the events of the Berlin Blockade led to an increase in anti-communist rhetoric and a re- evaluation of policy in Asia. Truman stated that communism had passed beyond subversion and was entering a new phase of war and conquest, linking what might have been seen more as a civil war with international ideological developments. The decision to intervene was a result of political pressure, concern about communism in an international context, concern about the US strategic perimeter, economic concerns about US markets and the possible safety of SE Asia and Japan. Acheson suggested that blaming ‘communism’ might be a way of avoiding direct conflict with the USSR. Answers could consider the decision to continue the war once UN forces had driven back the North Koreans to the original 38 parallel and link that to raised military expectations and a desire for a longer-term solution and more decisive victory.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

9 ‘Gorbachev’s commitment to peaceful change was the main reason for the end of the Cold War.’ Discuss. [30]

Mark scheme: 9 ‘Gorbachev’s commitment to peaceful change was the main reason for 30 the end of the Cold War.’ Discuss. Candidates might argue that Gorbachev’s commitment to peaceful change was the main reason or discuss whether Reagan’s role was more important. The answer may also be developed in other ways, e.g. by considering that it was never Gorbachev’s intention to replace communism; it was his miscalculation that was the main reason and he was not prepared to use force to defend it. Gorbachev broke with Soviet Marxism-Leninism and he supported fundamental change of the Soviet political system and society by peaceful means. In 1985, the USSR’s domestic economy was failing; heavy military expenditure on the war in Afghanistan and the prioritisation of military and industrial goods over consumer goods had resulted in grave shortages. Gorbachev realised that the economic problems needed to be addressed and that the USSR could not maintain its high expenditure on defence. He was prepared to negotiate on arms limitation. His policies of perestroika and glasnost acted as a catalyst for the non-violent revolutions that took place in Eastern Europe. However, Gorbachev miscalculated. Glasnost gave people the opportunity to say what they were thinking. Gorbachev had intended to reform communism, not replace it, but his reforms led to a revolution that was driven by the people and he was not prepared to use force to repress it. Gorbachev had failed to realise that communism would be destroyed once factors like nationalism took hold and once people became more aware of economic issues. By the summer of 1989, East Europeans were given more freedom and seized the chance to reject communism. By November, the Berlin Wall had fallen. Nevertheless, Reagan, not Gorbachev, has often been accredited with ending the Cold War. When Reagan was elected in 1980, he rejected détente. In 1983 he referred to the USSR as the ‘evil empire’ and he appeared uncompromising and tough; his first term was vital in contributing to the erosion of Soviet power. However, in November 1985, Reagan and Gorbachev met at Geneva, starting the process that led to a thawing of the Cold War. Reagan wanted to abolish nuclear weapons and stop the strategic arms race. He reassured Gorbachev that he was not seeking to destroy the USSR. In West Berlin on 12 June 1987 Reagan made his famous speech saying, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall’. The INF treaty was agreed to in December 1987 limiting their intermediate range nuclear weapons, but Reagan insisted that SDI could not be part of any arms control negotiations. He realised that he could negotiate with Gorbachev and was able to do so from a position of strength. Nevertheless, without a reformer taking over in the Kremlin, there would have been nobody with whom Reagan could engage and no end to the Cold War. Gorbachev referred to his foreign policy as ‘new thinking’ and he believed in co-operation.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

10 Discuss the extent to which North Korea was responsible for the outbreak of war in 1950. [30]

Mark scheme: 10 Discuss the extent to which North Korea was responsible for the 30 outbreak of war in 1950. Candidates might begin by arguing that the division of Korea along the 38th parallel provided the underlying reason for the war, with the involvement of the USSR in the North and the USA in the South. However, it could be argued that the responsibility lay with North Korea for starting the war and this could be developed by considering the involvement of the USSR. On the other hand, the role of the USA in implying that Korea lay outside the ‘defence perimeter’ of the USA as well as provocation from South Korea might also be considered. North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950 with the intention of uniting Korea under communist rule. Syngman Rhee, the President of the Republic of Korea, was also determined to reunite Korea; he pursued strong anti-communist policies. He had unleashed a brutal campaign against suspected communists in the South. War was triggered when, in 1950, Syngman Rhee boasted that he was going to attack North Korea providing the excuse for the North Koreans to invade South Korea. However, Stalin encouraged the invasion; he wanted to preserve Soviet strategic interests in the Far East and to prevent US influence in the region. The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance, signed in February 1950, had changed the balance of power in Asia. Stalin wanted to unify the Korean peninsula and keep China under Soviet influence. He believed that the outbreak of the Korean War would prevent China from attacking Taiwan and would place China’s military at the service of Soviet strategy. Stalin had to ensure that China would actively support North Korea and then approved Kim’s invasion plans. In a speech in January 1950, US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, had implied that the Korean Peninsula lay outside the all-important ‘defence perimeter’ of the USA. Acheson was criticised for giving Pyongyang the belief that it could pursue forcible reunification, believing that the USA had ruled out military intervention to defend South Korea. However, the USA believed they had a responsibility to show their commitment to the Truman Doctrine as they had promised to help countries threatened by communism. They were concerned about the domino effect and that Japan would be the next to fall to communism which would affect US trade. On the day of the invasion, the USA requested that the UN use force to restore peace and stop the communist threat. The USSR could not use its veto as it was boycotting the UN. It was agreed that sixteen member states would provide troops under a UN Joint Command which would fight with the South Korean Army with the USA effectively in charge. The USA was concerned about the fact that the USSR had exploded an atomic bomb in 1949 and, in early 1950, the National Security Council report ‘NSC68’ analysed Soviet and American military capabilities recommending heavy increases in military funding to help contain the Soviets. Truman and his advisers found themselves under increased domestic pressure not to appear ‘soft’ on communism to achieve a Cold War victory which would shore up his anti-communist credentials.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

11 Assess how far African nations were able to adopt non-alignment during the Cold War. [30]

Mark scheme: 11 Assess how far African nations were able to adopt non-alignment during 30 the Cold War. Candidates are likely to weigh up the support for non-alignment, the extent of its adoption against Africa’s need for economic aid and foreign intervention in conflicts to fight Cold War proxy battles. Many of the new African nations resisted the pressure to be drawn into the Cold War and joined in the ‘Non-Aligned Movement’ which was formed in 1961 drawing on the principles agreed at the Bandung Conference of 1955. Nkrumah, Kenyatta and Nyerere were all firm advocates of African states asserting their freedom and identity internationally. Following the independence of Ghana in 1957, Nkrumah advocated the unity of independent Africa. Not all African countries shared this vision as many felt that Nkrumah’s grand vision for a United States of Africa ran the risk of dissolving sovereignty and territorial integrity. He supported the integration of the whole of the African continent with united African nations having the economic, political and social weight to compete with Europe and the USA. In 1958, Nkrumah hosted an All-African People’s conference in Accra. Its theme was ‘hands off Africa’ and it called on groups from all over Africa to attend to discuss the final overthrow of colonialism and imperialism. In 1959 the presidents of Ghana, Guinea and Liberia signed the Sanniqullie Declaration; this outlined the principles for achieving the unity of the independent African states while maintaining their own identities and constitutions. The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was formed in 1963. Its aims were to safeguard the sovereignty and territory of the member states and to affirm a policy of non-alignment regarding all blocs. However, its respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity allowed emerging dictatorships and political instability. Although the desire to free Africa of all foreign interference was the rationale behind the establishment of the OAU, it often proved difficult to avoid involvement, with the continued need for economic assistance; many African states were ravaged by economic crises brought about by both internal and external influences. African countries realised that essential aid could only be obtained from the more advanced, developed areas of the world. They needed financial and technical assistance as well as help with defence and military support. Their urgent need of foreign aid meant that they could not be non-aligned. Although Africa gradually won the right to settle its own conflicts, this did not lead the great powers to refrain from all intervention. Newly independent nations such as Angola, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of Congo enabled Cold War proxy battles between the USA and the USSR. Against the backdrop of the Cold War, the USA used aid packages, technical assistance and sometimes even military intervention to encourage newly independent nations to adopt governments that aligned with the West.

More questions on What was the impact of imperial expansion on international relations?