Cambridge A Level History 9489 — 2024 Oct/Nov Paper 3 · Variant 3

1 Read the extract and then answer the question. The Austrians were not the only ones looking for a fight in July 1914. Content removed due to copyright restrictions. Given the power of the British navy, and its determination to keep Belgian ports out of German hands, this was a reckless decision. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the origins of the First World War to explain your answer. [40]

Mark scheme: Question Answer Marks 1 The origins of the First World War 40 Interpretation/Approach The extract blames the Austrians and the Germans for the outbreak of war. The main interpretation is that both Austria and Germany thought 1914 was their last chance of victory (so war now or never), and the Schlieffen Plan was dangerous and reckless (made war unavoidable in 1914). Showing complete understanding of the interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian argues that Germany and Austria wanted war in 1914. The balance of power seemed to be shifting rapidly against them, and they opted for war out of desperation. Once the crisis commenced, the Schlieffen Plan would serve to make war almost inevitable. The historian points out the reluctance of the other powers to fight, and clearly blames Austria and Germany, though the main focus of the extract is on Germany. If a label is used, it must be anti-revisionist for L5/L6. Glossary: Early post-WW1 interpretations tended to blame Germany, but quickly a reaction against this occurred, with a variety of interpretations blaming other nations. This may be termed revisionism. The turning point in the historiography was Fischer’s work of the early 1960s which went back to blaming Germany – sometimes known as anti-revisionism. Since then, there has been a vast variety of interpretations, looking at the importance of culture, individuals, contingent factors etc., with no clear consensus, though most historians would still place a significant burden of responsibility on Germany.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

2 Read the extract and then answer the question. By 1941 the Nazis saw at least three connected aspects of the ‘Jewish problem’: the German, the ‘eastern’ and the European. They had come to power vowing to rid Germany of its Jews, and forced emigration from the Reich and its newly conquered territories remained their preferred strategy for more than a year into the war itself. The 1940 Madagascar Plan was a revised version of this, and in fact it was only in October 1941 that Heydrich made it very clear in a message to the Foreign Ministry that the Reich was actually discouraging Jewish emigration from the European continent. The invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was the turning point. Inside the newly occupied territories, Jews were killed in the first days and weeks of the campaign in huge numbers. From July and August, SS death squads, helped by local auxiliaries, systematically carried out massacres in many towns and villages. The eastern killing grounds were seen as an eventual destination for Germany’s Jews too. When the Romanians and Hungarians began driving tens of thousands of Jews from their newly acquired border provinces across into former Soviet territory, they were only doing what the Nazis themselves planned on a much larger and more systematic scale. ‘Evacuation to the east’ was meant literally before it became a German cover-up phrase. By August the Nazi leadership was coming under pressure from its own Gauleiters to use the eastern territories to make the Reich ‘free of Jews’ as quickly as possible. At a meeting called by Goebbels (not only propaganda minister but also Gauleiter for Berlin), speaker after speaker complained that they could not understand why, after going through hell on the Eastern front, soldiers would come back to find Jews enjoying such freedom in Germany. Hitler initially resisted the idea of deporting German Jews while the war was in progress, and even hesitated to order the wearing of the yellow star, even though this had been compulsory in the General Government and the Warthegau for nearly two years. But he changed his mind with the news that Stalin had responded to the German drive deep into Ukraine by deporting hundreds of thousands of Volga Germans. Ideas of revenge lay behind many German atrocities and Hitler considered deporting all central European Jews to the eastern territories. But the practical difficulties of doing this while the German offensive was still in full operation were enormous, so he agreed instead with Heydrich’s suggestion of starting off with the main German cities. Where precisely the German Jews should go, however, and what should happen to them, was anything but clear. The Wehrmacht was already finding it difficult to keep and feed three million Soviet prisoners-of-war. Heydrich was not deterred, however. Initially he considered using the prisoner-of-war camps themselves. But the formation of larger, overcrowded ghettoes in places like Minsk, Riga and Lodz suggested another answer. Surely they could house newcomers from the Old Reich, especially if some of the current inhabitants were killed off? Lodz, in the annexed lands of the Warthegau, was closest, and in September Himmler asked Gauleiter Greiser to prepare the ghetto for approximately sixty thousand Jews. The following month some twenty thousand were transported there from Vienna, Prague and major German cities. Within months many had frozen or starved to death, while from January 1942 onwards others were gassed at nearby Chelmno. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Holocaust to explain your answer. [40] Section C: Topic 3 The origins and development of the Cold War

Mark scheme: 2 The Holocaust 40 Interpretation/Approach The extract blames the circumstances of war for the development of the Holocaust. The main interpretation is that before the invasion of the Soviet Union there was no plan for genocide (no prior plan), and even after the invasion measures against the Jews were improvised (ad hoc developments). Showing complete understanding of the Interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian signals that even as late as 1941 genocide cannot have been intended since Jewish emigration from the Reich was still permitted. Certainly treatment of Jews in the East was murderous, but what would happen to Germans Jews once they were deported remained unclear. There are strong indications that the historian sees the Holocaust emerging as an ad hoc response to circumstances brought about by war. The only label acceptable in L5/L6 is functionalist. Intentionalism can be refuted, and there is no structuralist argument that the nature of the Nazi state was responsible. These will be L3 only, unless an element of the interpretation is explained properly. Synthesis would need the functionalist element to be explained to reach L4. Glossary: Candidates may use some/all of the following terms: Intentionalism – interpretations which assume that Hitler/the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews from the start. Structuralism – interpretations which argue that it was the nature of the Nazi state that produced genocide. There was no coherent plan but the chaotic competition for Hitler’s approval between different elements of the leadership produced a situation in which genocide could occur. Functionalism sees the Holocaust as an unplanned, ad hoc response to wartime developments in Eastern Europe, when Germany conquered areas with large Jewish populations. Candidates may also refer to synthesis interpretations, i.e. interpretations which show characteristics of more than one of the above. What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.

More questions on Why did war break out in 1939?

3 Read the extract and then answer the question. The Roosevelt administration hoped, through its United Nations (UN) policy, to bring the nations of the world to accept American political traditions, thereby fulfilling the dream of making the world safer for democracy. Content removed due to copyright restrictions. In fact, these policy reviews were unknown to the American public, and the reconsideration of relations with the Russians, which ultimately produced the containment policy, coincided with what appeared to be the high point of official support for the UN policy. What can you learn from this extract about the interpretation and approach of the historian who wrote it? Use the extract and your knowledge of the Cold War to explain your answer. [40]

Mark scheme: 3 The origins and development of the Cold War 40 Interpretation/Approach The extract blames Truman for heightening Cold War tensions. The main interpretation is that Truman was culpable for abandoning Roosevelt’s search for improved relations (paragraph 1), and for moving towards a break with Russia (paragraphs 2 and 3). Showing complete understanding of the interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects. The historian sees Roosevelt as seeking to achieve America’s security aims through the UN, and Truman as being more confrontational. To some extent both misled the US public, but Roosevelt believed in the UN policy whilst Truman did not. In portraying Truman as being willing to adopt a more confrontational approach to the USSR, the historian indicates a revisionist perspective. Only this label is acceptable at L5/L6. The extract focuses on the US and particularly on Truman, and does not suggest Soviet responsibility for triggering hostility, so post-revisionist can only be L4 if Truman’s blame is properly explained. Orthodox/traditional and post-post-revisionist will be a maximum of L3. Glossary: Traditional/Orthodox interpretations of the Cold War were generally produced early after WW2. They blame the Soviet Union and Stalin’s expansionism for the Cold War. Revisionist historians challenged this view and shifted more of the focus onto the United States, generally through an economic approach which stressed the alleged aim of the US to establish its economic dominance over Europe. Post-revisionists moved towards a more balanced view in which elements of blame were attached to both sides. Since the opening of the Soviet archives post-1990 there has been a shift to attributing prime responsibility to Stalin – a post-post-revisionist stance which often seems very close to the traditional view, but which often places great importance on ideology. What counts is how appropriate the use of this kind of terminology is in relation to the extract, and how effectively the extract can be used to support it.

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