Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2024 Oct/Nov Paper 2 · Variant 2

1 France, 1774–1814 (a) Explain why Louis XVI and his family fled Paris in June 1791. [10] (b) ‘Napoleon was a dictator.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1(a) Explain why Louis XVI and his family fled Paris in June 1791. 10 Indicative content • One view is that Louis XVI intended to leave France, put himself at the head of foreign troops and French émigrés and forcibly restore the Ancien Regime. • J. Hardman, a biographer of Louis XVI, disagrees. He claims Louis intended to set up his headquarters in Lorraine. The mobilisation of 8000 Austrian troops in Luxemburg was a pretext for his general, Marquis de Bouille, to assemble an army in Lorraine and afford the royal family personal protection. • Louis XVI feared for his and his family’s safety – in April when the royal family tried to celebrate Easter mass at the Queen’s palace of Saint- Cloud a crowd turned back the royal carriage which was sitting in the courtyard of the Tuileries. • He was seeking to forestall an émigré uprising. They had often embarrassed him by speaking in his name yet would have put him under the control of an aristocratic form of government he had rejected. • Louis XVI expected the constitution to be finalised in July. Therefore, he wanted to leave Paris to avoid being forced to accept it as it stood. Accept any other valid responses. 1(b) ‘Napoleon was a dictator.’ How far do you agree? 20 Indicative content Arguments to support the view that Napoleon was a dictator could be as follows. He dominated the whole policy-making process and took the key decisions on war and peace. His methods of attaining power showed strong autocratic tendencies (a military coup). There was censorship and Fouché ran an effective police force. He took considerable steps to deal with opposition (Duc d’ Enghien) and there was an effective propaganda campaign. It was an authoritarian regime, and he made himself Emperor and looked set to create a hereditary monarchy with his family’s control of other countries spreading, as in Spain. He manipulated plebiscites to provide seeming popular support for his policies. Under Napoleon, the Senate became an instrument of his personal power. Its membership increased from 80 to 140 by 1814, most of the additional members being his direct nominees. Therefore, its members were anxious to please its benefactor and president, Napoleon. In 1808 the Tribunate was abolished, and the Legislature survived only by being subservient to Napoleon’s will. However, the view can be challenged. The army took no part in implementing government policies nor was it used to interfere directly in politics, as had been the case under the Directory. He had substantial support from the majority of the French people. The fact that so many of the changes that he brought about remained after his defeat indicates popular support for much of what he did. He took care not to offend Catholic sensibilities and was aware that there were limits to his authority. He was aware of the background of coups and took great care also to stress that many of the revolutionary ‘gains’ became part of French law. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What caused the rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte?

2 Liberalism and nationalism in Germany, 1815–71 (a) Explain why Bismarck wanted to be allied with Austria in the war against Denmark in 1864. [10] (b) To what extent did the Carlsbad Decrees limit the development of nationalism in Germany in the period from 1819 to 1848? [20]

Mark scheme: 2(a) Explain why Bismarck wanted to be allied with Austria in the war against 10 Denmark in 1864. Indicative content • He did not want the war to be waged in alliance with the whole of the German Confederation. He had no desire to elevate its status. • He saw waging a war in alliance with the strongest power in Germany as raising Prussia’s prestige in seeming to be an equal partner with Austria. • He knew Prussia could not avoid acting jointly with Austria. The Austrians would never agree to Prussia acting alone. At this time Prussia was not yet able to defy Austria. • There is a view that Bismarck saw it as a desirable alliance because any Prussian-Austrian settlement of so intricate a problem as the Schleswig- Holstein issue would provide the opportunity, at a later date of his choosing, to pick a quarrel with Austria and challenge its position in Germany. Accept any other valid responses. 2(b) To what extent did the Carlsbad Decrees limit the development of 20 nationalism in Germany in the period from 1819 to 1848? Indicative content Arguments to support the view that the Carlsbad Decrees did limit the development of nationalism in Germany in this period might take the following form. The nationalistic student societies, Burschenschaften, had been growing in size and strength since 1815. The Carlsbad Decrees disbanded these societies, so their growth was ended. Universities produced the future social and political elites of the German states. To prevent nationalistic ideas being carried forward the Carlsbad Decrees dismissed from their posts academics who supported German nationalism. To further limit the development of nationalism in Germany the Carlsbad Decrees placed universities under the control of new supervisors. The Carlsbad Decrees enacted a more rigid censorship over publications and the press. Therefore, open discussion of nationalistic ideas in the German states was lessened. The Carlsbad Decrees reflected Austria’s determination, under Metternich, to oppose any development of German nationalism. This dominance of the German states allowed Metternich, in 1821, to get all the German states to restrict the subjects which their assemblies could discuss. Austria remained the most influential power throughout this period. However, this view can be questioned. In 1832 nationalists met at Hambach in Bavaria, flew the tricolour, symbol of revolution and stated that power lay with the people. Thus, in the same year, and again in 1834, Mettternich got further legislation enacted to limit the discussion of nationalistic ideas in the universities and in the press. This suggests that the Carlsbad Decrees had not been effective in limiting the development of nationalistic ideas in Germany. It can be argued that it would have been almost impossible to totally suppress such ideas as there were several factors which helped to develop nationalism in Germany in this period. The early nineteenth century saw the growing pace of industrialisation in the German states. As part of this industrialisation railways developed and improved communication between German states, allowing for the growth of inter-state trade. This caused the idea to develop that a unified German state would increase wealth and trade even further. The growth of customs unions fostered the notion that a single German state without numerous tariffs would increase prosperity. This was something middle-class businessmen were keen to support as it maximised profits by increasing the available market for goods. By 1836, 25 of the 39 German states had joined the Zollverein, originally created by Prussia. Therefore, if most German states were willing to accept Prussian influence in economic affairs why not in a political union? Cultural factors, also, played a role. After 1815, there was a reaction against French ideas of culture. For example, the idea grew of a national spirit, the ‘volk’. Academic studies showed that, whilst the states had different dialects, these variations came from the same source. Therefore, there was a common German language. 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 the Bolsheviks were able to establish one-party rule by 1921. [10] (b) To what extent were Witte’s economic reforms successful? [20]

Mark scheme: 3(a) Explain why the Bolsheviks were able to establish one-party rule by 10 1921. Indicative content • Single-minded – the establishing of one-party rule had been pursued from the outset. After meeting for some 13 hours on 5–6 January 1918 the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. As Lenin told Trotsky this was the ‘complete and public liquidation of formal democracy in the name of revolutionary dictatorship.’ This single-minded outlook meant Lenin would change ideological tack – ending War Communism and introducing the New Economic Policy – for the greater priority of maintaining one-party rule. • Internal control – the power of the party leadership was increased with two new committees being created, the Politburo and Orgburo. Decisions went from the top downwards. In 1921 at the Tenth Party Conference Lenin introduced ‘On Unity’ which outlawed factionalism and all other political parties, other than the Bolsheviks. • Terror – the Cheka had been set up in December 1917 to root out counter-revolution. It brought fear and terror to the Bolshevik party opponents. It acted, also, as a useful tool to check on party loyalty and keep members compliant. • Russian Civil War – victory meant that the Bolsheviks faced no political rivals to challenge their authority. The Tsar and his family had been murdered and the Whites defeated. The need for victory had created a readiness for the Bolshevik party to resort to coercion, rule by fiat, centralised administration, and the dispensing of summary justice. Therefore, one-part rule faced no challenges • Effective use of propaganda- Bolsheviks controlled the press and used it to win support. • Lenin was prepared to change his policy – when War Communism became increasingly unpopular as the Civil War came to an end he introduced the New Economic Policy giving producers greater freedom. Accept any other valid responses. 3(b) To what extent were Witte’s economic reforms successful? 20 Indicative content Arguments to support the view that Witte’s reforms were successful could be as follows. As Minister of Finance from 1892 to 1903 he presided over extensive industrialisation. He did this by inviting large numbers of foreign experts and workers to advise on industrial planning and techniques. He negotiated large loans and investments from abroad, particularly France, whilst simultaneously imposing heavy taxes and high interest rates at home. Much of this foreign capital was invested directly in railways – in 1891 there were some 20 000 miles of track, by 1900 it was over 33 000 miles. His belief that major transport improvements would be beneficial to industry seems to have been borne out. The production of coal, pig iron and oil stood at 5.9, 0.89 and 3.9 million tons, respectively in 1890, but by 1900 was 16.1, 2.66 and 10.2 million tons respectively. Import tariffs on foreign goods helped to protect nascent Russian industries. However, the extent of this success can be challenged. Russia became too dependent on foreign loans and investment. The economy was unbalanced as Witte gave priority to heavy industry but neglected such vital areas as light engineering and paid no attention to the sector of the economy which dominated Russian life, agriculture. The figures for increased production look less impressive when it is noted that Russia was experiencing a massive growth in population. Therefore, production per head of population was less striking than the aggregate figures. Industrial growth under Witte led to a very rapid growth of the population in towns and cities. This had not been organised or supervised. The result was overcrowding. Whilst the economy boomed urban workers were willing to accept the conditions because of the higher wages. However, when boom turned to recession widespread unemployment was created. The regular presence of thousands of embittered workers on the streets of St Petersburg and Moscow played a significant part in the growth of social unrest in Russia. In the long run the failure of Wittes reforms was seen in the collapse of the economy and the failings of the railway network in the early years of the war from 1914 onward. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on What challenges faced the Tsarist regime in the years 1881–94?

4 The origins of the Civil War, 1820–61 (a) Explain why people believed in a ‘slave power’ conspiracy during the 1850s. [10] (b) To what extent did the Republican victory in the 1860 election cause the Civil War? [20]

Mark scheme: 4(a) Explain why people believed in a ‘slave power’ conspiracy during the 10 1850s. Indicative content • The ‘Slave Power’ (sometimes referred to as slavocracy) referred to the perceived influence held by slave owners in the federal government in the 1840s and 50s. Belief in this idea became more popular in the North during the 1850s as various decisions and votes went against the abolitionist cause. • Many in the North who were not abolitionists also began to fear this power as it looked to be upsetting the delicate balance in the Constitution which they sought to maintain. The term was popularised in the Northern media by campaigners such as Frederick Douglass and Horace Greeley. • Rulings throughout the 1850s including the 1850 Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision made many Northerners believe that the odds were stacked against them and that rather than slavery withering away they were facing a resurgence of its power. Accept any other valid responses. 4(b) To what extent did the Republican victory in the 1860 election cause the 20 Civil War? Indicative content Possible discussion around the impact of the election might consider how by 1860, the majority of the slave states were publicly threatening secession if the Republicans, the anti-slavery party, won the presidency. Following Republican Abraham Lincoln’s victory over the divided Democratic Party in November 1860, South Carolina immediately initiated secession proceedings. On December 20, the South Carolina legislature passed the “Ordinance of Secession” which declared that “the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved”. After the declaration South Carolina set about seizing forts, arsenals, and other strategic locations within the state. Within six weeks, five more Southern states–Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana– had followed South Carolina’s lead. When Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, a total of seven states (including now Texas) had seceded from the Union, and federal troops held only Fort Sumter in South Carolina, Fort Pickens off the Florida coast, and a handful of minor outposts in the South. The South saw the election of Lincoln as an attack on the institution of slavery and a break in the compact of the Union. They believed it was their right to secede. Possible discussion about other factors in the spring of 1861 might consider how the Declarations of secession record other reasons for acting than the election of Lincoln and it is clear that it took a few months for the war to come. Economic issues were also clear. Georgia accused the federal government of exploiting the South and the North of dominating the federal government. Similarly, Texas officials expressed dissatisfaction with federal military protection. Many states also continued to use the call of States’ Rights to explain their secession even mentioning the lack of implementation of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act as a grievance. Note: a valid alternative approach to this question is to compare short term factors like the events of 1860–61 with longer term factors stemming from the Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent Kansas Nebraska Act etc. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why did the Civil War break out in April 1861?

5 Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861–77 (a) Explain why Reconstruction ended in 1877. [10] (b) ‘The shortage of resources was the main reason the Civil War lasted for four years.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Mark scheme: 5(a) Explain why Reconstruction ended in 1877. 10 Indicative content Reconstruction ended in 1877 after the Compromise was passed as a result of the controversial results of the 1876 Presidential election. The inconclusive election once again signalled that the United States was in danger of falling into conflict. • The Compromise was an informal deal in February 1877 between the Republican Party and Southern Democrats. In return for the Republicans (a) aiding various infrastructure projects and (b) withdrawing federal troops from the South, those Democrats would accept the Republican, Rutherford Hayes, as President. • The Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, had not only clearly won the popular vote but more narrowly led the Electoral College vote. Twenty Electoral College votes were disputed, however, in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. An electoral commission was appointed to rule on these results. Divided on party lines, it awarded all twenty votes to Hayes who, as a result, won the Electoral College by a single vote. Thus, the Compromise showed that the project of Reconstruction had largely been a failure in that the two halves of the union had not been successfully reunited – at least not in party political terms. Accept any other valid responses. 5(b) ‘The shortage of resources was the main reason the Civil War lasted for 20 four years.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Possible discussions about the availability of resources might include that in 1860 the South was still a predominantly agricultural economy which was reliant on the sale of goods to the world economy. The Southern states produced two thirds of the world’s cotton supply but had little manufacturing capability – 29% of the train tracks in the US and 13% of banks. In contrast, 90% of the country’s manufacturing output came from the North. The North produced more than the South: 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. This would have an impact on their ability to turn to a war time economy. Even in agricultural terms the North outproduced the South – by 1860 the North had c. twice the amount of farm machinery as the South which led to greater output. These advantages continued to grow for the North as the Civil War began and they were able to mobilise their population and machinery to put down the rebellion in the South. In addition, better transport links in the North allowed for an easier and more efficient movement of troops. Possible discussions of other factors prolonging the war might include the nature of the war. The North had to fully ‘conquer’ the South in order to be seen as successful whereas the South had only to continue to fight a defensive war. This meant that the nature of victory was often unclear. There also was some opposition to the Civil War in the North. The Peace Democrats wanted President Lincoln to negotiate a settlement with the Confederacy. Thus, not everybody in the North fully supported the Union’s war efforts. The different approaches by leaders in the North and South and how the change of leader to Grant in 1864 had an impact on the outcome of the war might also be considered. Accept any other valid responses.

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

6 The Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 1870s to 1920 (a) Explain why Progressive presidents reformed the Constitution in the years leading up to 1920. [10] (b) ‘The most significant consequences of immigration in the period 1870–1920 were economic in nature.’ How far do you agree? [20] Section C: International option International history, 1870–1945

Mark scheme: 6(a) Explain why Progressive presidents reformed the constitution in the 10 years leading up to 1920. Indicative content There were 4 amendments to the Constitution which took place during the Progressive Era: • The 16th Amendment introduced a system of income tax based on what individuals earned and replaced the system of apportionment which calculated tax based on state populations. • The 17th Amendment allowed for direct elections of US senators this allowed people to have a more immediate say on who their representatives were. • The 18th Amendment prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors. • The 19th Amendment allowed for women’s suffrage. These four amendments give candidates chance to discuss the various policy positions of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century: • The 16th amendment was aimed at equalising the tax system as farmers in rural states often struggled to pay their share of tax when it was calculated by apportionment. • The 17th amendment offers the chance to discuss the commitment by many Progressives both at state and federal level to making democratic decisions more accessible to the ‘common man’. • The 18th amendment highlights the close relationship which had existed between Progressives and the temperance movement; whilst women’s suffrage could be used to discuss both the social and political aims of Progressive thinkers. Accept any other valid responses. 6(b) ‘The most significant consequences of immigration in the period 1870– 20 1920 were economic in nature.’ How far do you agree? Indicative content Possible areas for discussion about economic consequences might include how there were economic benefits including both a plentiful supply of labour and growing markets for many goods and services. The influx of migrants brought new skills and new ideas which led to some of the new inventions which encouraged industrial growth. However, there was also a downward pressure on wages and thus living standards of the urban working class. These pressures also weakened the position of labour unions and were used by business leaders and party bosses to manipulate labour markets. Possible areas for discussion about other consequences might include social problems such as overcrowded slum areas of many cities, especially in the industrial northeast. This led to high mortality rates. The overcrowded slums inhabited by immigrants of different religions and different nationalities led to racial tensions and conflicts, e.g., the gangs of New York. Another social problem resulting from mass immigration was that of drunkenness and alcoholism. Thus, the Anti-Saloon League was formed. There were more opportunities for second and third generations of immigrant families to gain more skilled employment and social status or to move to other regions of the USA. Accept any other valid responses.

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

7 Empire and the emergence of world powers, 1870–1919 (a) Explain why Russia was unable to defeat Japan in the war of 1904–05. [10] (b) To what extent was colonial rivalry in Africa the cause of a decline in Anglo-German relations? [20]

Mark scheme: 7(a) Explain why Russia was unable to defeat Japan in the war of 1904–05. 10 Indicative content The defeat of Russia in the war of 1904–5 was a major disaster for the Tsarist regime and marked the emergence of Japan as a significant power. Though it seemed at the time unexpected, there were significant underlying reasons why Russia was unable to defeat Japan. • Russia expected to win and was not well prepared for the strength of the Japanese forces. • Russian forces had less modern equipment. Especially their navy was out of date and dilapidated compared to the modern Japanese navy. • Russian had long lines of communication, and the trans-Siberian railway was barely started so it was not possible to move fresh troops quickly to the front after initial defeats by the surprise attack of the Japanese. • When its Pacific Fleet was destroyed in the initial engagements the only alternative Russia had was to move its Baltic fleet to the Far East. Problems with Britain compounded the problem as the fleet was banned from using the Suez Canal and when it arrived it fared no better than the Pacific Fleet and was destroyed by the superior Japanese navy at the Battle of Tsushima • The Japanese had modern weapons well-trained and committed forces and short lines of communication. Accept any other valid responses. 7(b) To what extent was colonial rivalry in Africa the cause of a decline in 20 Anglo–German relations? Indicative content From the 1890s onwards relations between the two powers became increasingly strained. Partly this was due to the growing demand from Kaiser Wilhelm for ‘a place in the sun’. This highlighted potential conflicts that were further compounded by the situation in South Africa and the Kaiser’s overt support for the Boers. It also led to other challenges by the Germans to the British overall colonial position. In support of colonial rivalry discussion might consider how following the unification of Germany in 1870 Bismarck steered Germany along a path that was more concerned with isolating France than with overseas expansion. However, by the 1880s thriving German businesses were pressing for a more expansionist policy and it was in this context that the Congress of Berlin was organised, in 1884, to draw up a set of agreed conditions for imperial expansion in Africa. However, when Wilhelm II took over the throne of Germany and quickly dismissed Bismarck, he began to express his dissatisfaction with the territories Germany had been able to secure directing his complaints particularly again the British whose control of large areas of territory and their control of the Suez Canal, which provided access to far easter markets, was a cause of great resentment. In the early 1900s this rivalry was exacerbated by the Moroccan crises and the Kaiser was deeply dissatisfied with the Algeciras Conference where everyone, but Austria supported the British and French proposals. In considering other factors discussion might include Naval rivalry. The German Naval Laws of 1898 and 1900 which set out targets to increase the German navy to put it more on a par with the British caused increased tensions. The Kaiser claimed that as a great power it was necessary to make this increase, but the British were suspicious of his motives given that Germany had nowhere near the same worldwide commitments that Britain had. Additionally, after the Fashoda Crisis was resolved peacefully in 1898, Britain and France had largely settled their colonial differences and become closer. In 1904 they signed the Entente Cordiale and in 1907 when the Germans challenged the French grip on Morocco in the hope of splitting this link as well as gaining more influence themselves, the two sides became even closer. The Kaiser’s telegram to Paul Kruger following the repelling of the Jameson Raid also created deep resentment and distrust in Britain and the Kaiser’s continued backing of the Boers in their struggle against the British in South Africa exacerbated the decline in relations. Accept any other valid responses.

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

8 The League of Nations and international relations in the 1930s (a) Explain why the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was not resisted. [10] (b) ‘The invasion of Poland in September 1939 was not expected to lead to a wider European conflict.’ How valid is this view? [20]

Mark scheme: 8(a) Explain why the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was not resisted. 10 Indicative content The demilitarisation of the Rhineland had been part of the Treaty of Versailles that Hitler was intent on destroying. It was part of the forced disarmament of Germany and Hitler was now determined to overturn that restriction. Though Britain and France protested vigorously they did not take any direct action to stop it because: • There was a general acceptance that the terms of the Treaty had been too severe, and that Hitler had a reasonable claim to make some adjustments to the restrictions placed on Germany especially following the failure of the World Disarmament Conference. • There was a feeling amongst western leaders that a strong Germany would be a good defence against the spread of communism which appeared more threatening as a result of protests over the hardships created by the Great Depression. • The French were in no position to go to war against Germany and were facing internal political uncertainty. • In both Britain and France anti-war feeling was strong and many believed that Hitler simply seemed to be providing the strong and decisive leadership needed to recover from the Great Depression. Accept any other valid responses. 8(b) ‘The invasion of Poland in September 1939 was not expected to lead to a 20 wider European conflict.’ How valid is this view? Indicative content Hitler certainly did not think that the allies would respond so decisively to the invasion of Poland. Hitler had since 1936 taken a number of expansionist steps in the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. These were designed to destroy the Treaty of Versailles and to test the resolve of the other European powers to resist his moves. Their commitment to the policy of appeasement convinced Hitler that they would not respond any more decisively to his invasion of Poland. Also he expected the German Blitzkrieg would overwhelm Poland so quickly that the Western Allies would be unable to react One of the biggest threats of war was if the Western Allies persuaded the Soviet Union to join them in guaranteeing the integrity of Poland. The signing of the Nazi Soviet Pact in August 1939 ended this possibility and Hitler did not believe the British and French had the capacity of the inclination to go to war for a country in eastern Europe – they had after all made similar promises to Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, the move against Poland marked a different phase of Hitlers plans as it went beyond revisiting the Treaty of Versailles and moved into the ‘winning lebensraum’ phase of his long-term plans. After the invasion of the rump of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 British belief in the effectiveness of appeasement had finally been destroyed and a new mutual assistance pact was signed with Poland in March 1939. Britain had begun rearmament 1936 and in 1939 began preparations for the eventuality of war by beginning to prepare the general public with measures including issuing the Military Training Act in April 1939, even though they remained strongly in favour of peaceful settlement of issues. Churchill had also long argued that Hitler’s intention was to start a new European war to achieve his ambitions. Political leaders in Britain increasingly came to accept this viewpoint while Hitler’s own army leaders argued against the invasion. They believed it would lead to war and that the German forces, though strong and growing stronger, were not ready to fight a war against Britain and France. On September 1st when Hitler invaded Poland Chamberlain issued an ultimatum for German withdrawal and within a few hours the French declared war on Germany but were unable to do anything immediately because the speed of Hitler’s attack had taken them by surprise. Accept any other valid responses.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

9 China and Japan, 1912–45 (a) Explain why Japanese military leaders thought war with the USA was inevitable by 1941. [10] (b) How important was Chinese Communist Party support to the success of the Northern Expedition? [20]

Mark scheme: 9(a) Explain why Japanese military leaders thought war with the USA was 10 inevitable by 1941. Indicative content Japan, in the 1930s, was dominated by an expansionist military regime. One of its objects was the reshaping of the economic landscape of Southeast Asia, something that would inevitably bring them into conflict with other powers. The US was seen as particularly critical because: • Developing an area of Japanese control across the western Pacific zone depended on effective naval communications and the US was the other major sea power of the Pacific. The Washington Naval Treaty had given it an advantage, but the Japanese had repudiated this treaty and believed it would be necessary to challenge the US for naval superiority. • Japan was initially worried about response of western colonial powers, but by the summer of 1940 they had either fallen to Nazi control (Netherlands and France) or were fully engaged in defending themselves in Europe (Britain) and so were no longer a threat. • Even after the start of the war in Europe Japan still remained worried about the possibility of the Soviet Union attacking as they had avoided involvement in Europe but in July 1940 Hitler launched operation Barbarossa which removed any immediate Soviet threat to Japan. • This left the only serious threat to Japanese ambitions as the US Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor. The only way to neutralise this threat was to launch a surprise attack when the bulk of the fleet was in port and thus cripple US capacity to prevent Japan taking over the western colonies it had its eyes on. Accept any other valid responses. 9(b) How important was Chinese Communist Party support to the success of 20 the Northern Expedition? Indicative content The Northern Expedition began in July 1926, having been four years in the planning. It was led by Chiang Kai-shek who, as effective head of the National Revolutionary army had taken over as de facto leader of the KMT following the death of Sun. Under Sun’s leadership, leading communists had been integrated into leading roles in the KMT and one of Chiang’s first acts was to remove these (the Canton Purge 1926), but communist forces remained a substantial part of the NRA (National Revolutionary Army) when it launched the Northern expedition. Communists had been actively recruiting and much of the success of the Northern Expedition was due to the large numbers of peasant and workers who joined the KMT forces as their success became increasingly apparent. Many of these recruits were attracted by the Communist promises of land redistribution and creation of industrial co- operatives. This expansion of the army with Communist supporters gave the KMT the advantage thy needed to push forward with the expedition as planned. Wang, the leader of the KMT left-wing faction, who headed a government in Wuhan, was happy to cooperate with the communists and valued their contribution. However, Chiang, leading the right wing, was not happy to be dependent on the communists and ended their cooperation with the Shanghai massacres in 1927. Despite this the KMT went on to capture major cities of the North including Beijing in 1928. From an early stage the KMT success also owed a considerable debt to the USSR. They perceived an advantage in supporting the KMT in order to create a friendlier ally on their eastern frontier and so provide military training to officers like Chiang before the establishment of the Whampoa Military Academy in 1924. They also supplied advisors and modern weapons to support the KMT in their campaign against the warlords. Weaknesses of the warlords was also an influence. Compared to the NRA the warlord armies were badly organised and poorly equipped. They were sufficient to control each warlord area but not for operations on a larger scale. Many of the soldiers were mercenaries who utilised their position to terrorise local populations to extract further rewards in addition to the pay they received Additionally, the warlords themselves tended to jealously guard their own positions so there was limited cooperation between them meaning they did not have the strength to resist a well-equipped and organised army like the NRA. Accept any other valid responses.

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