Cambridge International AS & A Level: History 9489/42 March 2021

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 17

Cambridge International AS & A Level

HISTORY 9489/42
Paper 4 Depth Study March 2021
MARK SCHEME
Maximum Mark: 60

Published

This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the
examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the
details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.

Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for
Teachers.

Cambridge International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.

Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the March 2021 series for most Cambridge
IGCSE™, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level components.

This document consists of 17 printed pages.

© UCLES 2021 [Turn over


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Generic Marking Principles

These general marking principles must be applied by all examiners when marking candidate answers.
They should be applied alongside the specific content of the mark scheme or generic level descriptors
for a question. Each question paper and mark scheme will also comply with these marking principles.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 1:

Marks must be awarded in line with:

• the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question
• the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question
• the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 2:

Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 3:

Marks must be awarded positively:

• marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme. However, credit
is given for valid answers which go beyond the scope of the syllabus and mark scheme,
referring to your Team Leader as appropriate
• marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do
• marks are not deducted for errors
• marks are not deducted for omissions
• answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these
features are specifically assessed by the question as indicated by the mark scheme. The
meaning, however, should be unambiguous.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 4:

Rules must be applied consistently, e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed
instructions or in the application of generic level descriptors.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 5:

Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question
(however; the use of the full mark range may be limited according to the quality of the candidate
responses seen).

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 6:

Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should
not be awarded with grade thresholds or grade descriptors in mind.

© UCLES 2021 Page 2 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

AO2 – Demonstrate an understanding of the past through explanation, analysis and a


substantiated judgement of key concepts: causation, consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context, the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied.

This mark scheme assesses the quality of analysis demonstrated in addressing the
question.

Level 5 Answers demonstrate a full understanding of the question, are balanced 13–15
and analytical.
Answers:
• establish valid and wide-ranging criteria for assessing the question
• are consistently analytical of the key features and characteristics of the
period
• provide a focused, balanced argument with a sustained line of reasoning
throughout
• reach a clear and sustained judgement.

Level 4 Answers demonstrate a good understanding of the question, and are 10–12
mostly analytical.
Answers:
• establish valid criteria for assessing the question
• are analytical of the key features and characteristics of the period, but
treatment of points may be uneven
• attempt to provide a balanced argument, but may lack coherence and
precision in some places
• reach a supported judgement, although some of the evaluations may be
only partly substantiated.

Level 3 Answers demonstrate an understanding of the question and contain some 7–9
analysis. Argument lacks balance.
Answers:
• show attempts at establishing criteria for assessing the question
• show some analysis of the key features and characteristics of the period,
but may also contain descriptive passages
• provide an argument but lacks balance, coherence and precision
• begin to form a judgement although with weak substantiation.

Level 2 Answers demonstrate some understanding of the question and are 4–6
descriptive.
Answers:
• attempt to establish criteria for assessing the question but these may be
implicit
• show limited analysis of the key features and characteristics of the period,
and contain descriptive passages that are not always clearly related to the
focus of the question
• make an attempt at proving an argument, but this is done inconsistently
and/or may be unrelated to the focus of the question
• make an assertion rather than a judgement.

© UCLES 2021 Page 3 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Level 1 Answers address the topic, but not the question. 1–3
Answers:
• focus on the topic rather than the question
• lack analysis or an argument
• lack a relevant judgement.

Level 0 No creditable content. 0

© UCLES 2021 Page 4 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

AO1 – Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately and effectively.

This mark scheme assesses the quality and depth of knowledge deployed to support the
argument made.

Level 5 Answers demonstrate a high level of relevant detail. 13–15


Supporting material:
• is carefully selected
• is fully focused on supporting the argument
• is wide-ranging
• is consistently precise and accurate.

Level 4 Answers demonstrate a good level of relevant supporting detail. 10–12


Supporting material:
• is selected appropriately
• is mostly focused on supporting the argument
• covers a range of points but the depth may be uneven
• is mostly precise and accurate.

Level 3 Answers demonstrate an adequate level of supporting detail. 7–9


Supporting material:
• is mostly appropriately selected
• may not fully support the points being made, may be descriptive in places
• covers a narrow range of points
• occasionally lacks precision and accuracy in places.

Level 2 Answers demonstrate some relevant supporting detail. 4–6


Supporting material:
• is presented as a narrative
• is not directly linked to the argument
• is limited in range and depth
• frequently lacks precision and accuracy.

Level 1 Answers demonstrate limited knowledge of the topic. 1–3


Supporting material:
• has limited relevance to the argument
• is inaccurate or vague.

Level 0 No creditable content. 0

© UCLES 2021 Page 5 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

1 Assess the impact of Mussolini’s foreign policy on Italy. 30

Responses may consider the significance of events such as the Corfu


Incident, the Stresa Front, attempted Anschluss by Germany in 1934, the
Abyssinian Crisis, The Rome Berlin Tokyo Axis, the Munich meetings, the
Pact of Steel and the Cavallero Memorandum. When looking at the foreign
policy actions of Mussolini it is important to look at his aims, actions, and the
outcomes of his policies. His aim to create a strong man image and the
boast of recreating the Roman Empire need assessing and his increasing
isolation from Britain and France and the ever- closer relationship with
Germany. His aim to be a power broker and particularly his courting by
Britain and France in the policy of Appeasement as for example by the
reluctance to impose sanctions over Abyssinia or his help in organising the
Munich Conference. Responses ought to assess what benefits and what
negative consequences came about from his policies and in particular being
drawn into a disastrous World War Two, which Italy was not prepared to
fight and which lead to his fall from power and allied occupation of Italy.

© UCLES 2021 Page 6 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

2 Evaluate the causes of the Great Terror. 30

The murder of Kirov in 1934 is usually seen as a starting point of the Great
Terror and the fact that Stalin felt threatened at the 17th party Congress and
there was pen questioning of his economic policies. This lead on to the
removal of former Bolsheviks and rivals in the show trials of the 16, 17 and
21. These were state managed with pre-determined outcomes and held in
public to demonstrate Stalin’s power. Rivals such as Zinoviev, Kamenev,
Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky were all removed. The Yezhovschina starting
in 1936 was a mass and indiscriminate use of terror orchestrated by
Yezhov, who had in turn replaced Yagoda, who was later executed. These
purges involved wholesale murder and involved the general population and
were designed to subdue the population. In 1938 Yezhov was replaced by
Beria, who continued terror and made the Gulags part of the economic
system of the Soviet Union. Yezhov was executed to show that no one was
safe and indeed, he was publicly blamed for the excesses of the
Yezhovschina. During the Great Terror there was also the purge of the
military. Motives might include removing rivals, subduing the population,
providing cheap labour for the Five-Year Plans, but also the character of
Stalin and the nature of the Soviet State. This also leads on the degree of
centralised control or local excess by the NKVD and local party bosses.

© UCLES 2021 Page 7 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

3 Assess the aims of Hitler’s foreign policy in the period 1933–41. 30

Hitler had a variety of motives in the period. Revising the Treaty of


Versailles, creating a Greater Germany, Lebensraum in Eastern Europe,
and arguably racial imperialism. Domination of Europe, military strength,
and then arguably global conquest. He also wanted to avoid a two- front war
with the Soviet Union for as long as possible and until Western Europe was
defeated. His foreign policy was also designed to increase his own
popularity at home, at least in the early years and finally he wanted to make
Germany economically self-sufficient using Autarky from 1936 to allow war
to be followed as a policy. He intended to make himself the Master of
Foreign Policy replacing traditional diplomats such as Von Neurath with Von
Ribbentrop and military tactics, replacing Von Blomberg and Von Fritsch
with Keitel. From 1933 he wanted German equality and revoked the Treaty
of Versailles, left the World Disarmament Conference and then the League
of Nations. 1935 saw the Saar Plebiscite and the Anglo-German Naval
Treaty, 1936 the reoccupation of the Rhineland, a decisive step, which
showed neither France nor Britain would stand up to him at this stage. The
Spanish Civil War was simply a chance to test his air force. The Rome-
Berlin-Tokyo Axis was an anti-Soviet alliance and the Hossbach
Memorandum of 1937 set out his future plans. 1938 saw the Anschluss and
then the Munich Agreement handing Germany the Sudetenland. Hitler in his
foreign policy was playing on the Pro-Appeasement policies of Britain and
France whilst regaining territory taken at the Treaty of Versailles. 1939 was
a decisive year in his occupation of Rump Czechoslovakia and the Nazi-
Soviet Pact of August 1939. The Pact of Steel with Italy might be mentioned
here too. September 1st and the invasion brought war and then Hitler’s aims
were to quickly conquer Western Europe which he did apart from Britain. In
1941 Germany launched Operation Barbarossa which has racial and
economic and political motives.

© UCLES 2021 Page 8 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

4 ‘Britain followed a policy of appeasement because it was militarily 30


unprepared for war.’ Discuss this view.

Responses may consider how Britain was militarily unprepared to fight the
Second World War, but better prepared by 1939 than it had been in the
early 1930s. Other motives for the policy need examination and explanation.
A strong anti-war feeling amongst politicians who had seen the Great War
was a very strong motivating factor. Baldwin, Chamberlain, and Halifax are
all prominent here. Public Opinion was also arguably pacifist as shown by
the Oxford Union Debate, although many of these young men would later
fight. The need to govern the Empire and increasing demands for
independence in India from Gandhi and Jinnah occupied much government
time and economic resource. The fact that the Dominions made it very clear
that they would fight again but only if the Mother Country was in peril made
Britain cautious of foreign policy entanglements. The on-going impact of the
Great Depression and trying to solve the economic problems of Britain were
high on the political agenda. There was also a belief that the Treaty of
Versailles needed revising and that many of Hitler’s demands were justified
or certainly not worth fighting over. Chamberlain felt he had a rapport with
Hitler and his Munich Agreement was welcomed by a cheering House of
Commons. Also, the need to keep Mussolini as a negotiating partner
allowed Britain to justify appeasement over Abyssinia. Fear of the Soviet
Union also seemed more justified than that of Hitler. Britain also was
prepared to unilaterally revise the Treaty of Versailles when needed, for
example the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935.

© UCLES 2021 Page 9 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

5 Assess the reasons for the opposition to the Civil Rights movement in 30
the Southern states of the US in the 1950s.

Factors might include resentment at changes emanating from North and


from protests in the South; concerns about social and economic status.
Historic traditions should be considered. White supremacy had a long
history since the failure of Reconstruction in the 1870s and the gradual
establishment of Jim Crow laws and restrictions on voting and political
activity. The discrimination and racial control had had the backing of the
Supreme Court and there had been little support for comprehensive civil
rights legislation from either Congress or the Executive. White juries in the
South were unwilling to convict for acts of violence against African
Americans and while organisations ranging from the clandestine to the more
overt acted against change in the years after the Second World War.
Governors like Wallace and Faubus won popularity by opposing
desegregation. Civil Rights activists found the South a dangerous place and
Southern Senators and Congressmen were a powerful lobby against
change. Reasons for this sustained opposition might be seen in terms of a
reaction against developments which threatened change – the more active
Civil Rights in the 1950s and the successes of the NAACP in mounting legal
challenges against segregation; the pressure on governments to
demonstrate during the Cold War that international criticisms of its own
policy towards civil rights was flawed and the support of white liberals for
moderate change. At root a minority of Southerners adopted a militant
resistance to any change on the grounds that it threatened racial control.
The deep-rooted view that without this control African Americans would be
an economic, social and sexual threat went back to the 1860s or beyond.
Years of unpunished violence, lynching and political discrimination in the
form of ‘grandfather clauses’ which prevented black voting and the
cooperation of courts, police and local government in abuse meant that
there were high expectations that all change could be resisted successfully.
The pace of change in post-war America left many feeling insecure about
traditional ways of life especially in rural areas and small towns in the South
so that opposition to civil rights was a form of opposition to modernisation.
The feeling that Northern influence was impinging on the South was an
important motive for opposition. Fears that without social control African
Americans might be competitors remained strong and were exploited by
racist leaders. However, opposition could take other forms than militant
action, violence and political opposition to change. A generalised concern
that social norms were being eroded and a lack of willingness to oppose
white opposition in the form of Citizens organisations or the Klan activities
might be explained by social conservatism – dislike of old certainties such
as segregation, the subservience of African Americans and the patronising
use of first names or nicknames for local blacks. There was a distinction too
between those who were opposed to all change and those who opposed
civil rights movements being imported from the North and trying to drive the
pace of reform too quickly.

© UCLES 2021 Page 10 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

6 ‘During the1960s and 1970s it was clear that post-war economic 30


doctrines were failing.’ Discuss this view

Challenge to post war assumptions as growth slowed and impact of external


events. Post-war economic thinking was heavily influenced by the apparent
failures of unregulated capitalism in the Great Crash and the rise of federal
responsibility and control which grew during the Second World War. After
1945 the US could not return to isolationism and had to accept its global
position. Through to the 1960s and 1970s, it was taken for granted that the
Federal government would play a large part in the domestic economy and
would manage business cycles, aim to maintain full employment, regulate
private firms and the financial sector and produce various public goods such
as the expansion of the interstate highways. To do this required relatively
high levels of taxation and there was limited progress towards tax cuts
through the period. This adapted Keynesianism was accompanied by high
levels of defence spending putting the state as a major driver of economic
activity. Federal and state spending and subsidies cushioned free enterprise
against market forces. The US allied this macroeconomic management with
moves for free trade, but international capital movements were restricted.
There were critics of this mixed economy who looked back to neo liberal
economic theory and when the US economy faltered from steady if
unimpressive growth rates in the 1970s there were calls for deregulation
and reduction of subsidies and welfare and tax cuts to stimulate enterprise
together with an extension of free trade. Laissez faire ideas were
reintroduced on the grounds that government efforts to manage the
business cycle were futile and excessive levels of taxation and regulation
were destroying the vitality of market economies. Trade negotiations were
now expanded to dismantle ‘nontariff barriers’ that included domestic
legislation that had the unintended consequence of discriminating against
foreign products. Developing nations were told to scrap their planning
processes, to privatise state-owned enterprises, and to end subsidies that
made food, transportation, and housing more available for the poor. The
assault on post-war economic doctrines that still determined much thinking
in the 1960s and 70s was considerable, but the debate is whether it was
justified. Defenders have argued that the balance between the public and
private sectors was beneficially maintained and that the oil crisis was
beyond the control of governments and the recession was not a result of ill-
judged doctrine but of changes in the world context. It is also pointed out
that the critics could not prevent continuing high levels of government
spending which were part of US commitment to world power status, not
Keynesianism. Also, the consumer-based prosperity that continued into the
1960s did ensure a degree of social stability that was lost by neo-liberal
economic policy which resulted in greater social inequality. Critics pointed to
the sluggish growth rates and the over dependence on the state and the
benefits of greater enterprise with the expansion of technology and the freer
financial markets.

© UCLES 2021 Page 11 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

7 Evaluate the effectiveness of Affirmative Action policies in the 1980s. 30

Affirmative action produced some key legal changes that offered greater
opportunity for minorities and seemed to go some way to meeting criticisms
that civil rights progress had been limited to political change and had done
little to meet economic and social inequality. In 1980 the Supreme Court
accept that reasonable quotas were legal and that a federal law reserving
15% of public works to be reserved for qualified minority contractors. The
opportunities for minorities were helped by Connecticut v Teal (1982) a
Supreme Court decision making employers liable for race discrimination if
selection procedures affected the opportunities of minorities
disproportionally. Additionally, with deferral laws and the backing of the
Supreme Court it could be argued that there was progress. There was an
increase in the percentage of white-collar jobs held by African American
men and women by the 1990s and a rise in physicians from 2.2 to 4.5%
African American higher education professors doubled in the 1990s,
attorneys rose 6 times and engineers 4 times. Therefore, Affirmative Action
seemed to have had an effect on employment opportunities and its legality
had been established. However, though there had been increases, the
considerable inequality of representation of minorities in top positions and
the professions remained.

However, its success in being generally politically and socially accepted was
less marked as Reagan actively opposed quotas and the Justice
Department backed legal cases which challenged the principle of positive
discrimination. By 1984 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
was filing 60% fewer cases than it had in 1980 because of cuts in funding
and political opposition. There was too a turn in the legal tide with the
Wygant v Jackson Board of Education 1986 overturning the legality of a
policy of a school board in laying off white teachers before non-white
teachers to defend the employment of minorities.

© UCLES 2021 Page 12 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

8 Assess the importance of the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 for 30


the United States.

The Bretton Woods agreement arose from a conference in 1944 organised


by the US Treasury. The agreement came to be signed by 44 countries and
was aimed at avoiding the inter-war problems of protectionism, competitive
devaluations, outflows of currency and unstable exchange rates. The idea
was that financial stability would promote international trade and this in turn
would promote peace. To avoid inflexible gold standard rates, there was a
basic fixed rate by which the US dollar was tied to gold to give stability and
to establish a sound reserve currency. But there was the ability of countries
to use a new International Monetary Fund to go beyond their quota to
provide stimulus to prevent mass unemployment and depression. It took
fifteen years for the new system to establish itself and did lead to some
problems. There was a tendency of governments to pursue ‘stop –go’
policies, alternating between using the opportunity for expansionism not
available in a more rigid gold standard system and then having to pursue
austerity policies to protect the value of their currency. As the US was the
reserve currency it was not subject to this and there was a gap between the
US position and the rest of the world. The holding of dollars was also a
problem for the US and by 1964 US gold stock was less than its dollar
liabilities through the world. The US had to put pressure on other nations not
to convert their dollars into gold and had to make great efforts to keep the
price of gold down to the 1944 level of $35 an ounce, the system had
depended on the value of the $ being reasonably stable but a big rise in
inflation in the US after 1965 undermined this and in 1971 Nixon took the
US off the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system came to an end.

The agreement created two major international financial institutions the IMF
and the World Bank. It was remarkable for the fact that 44 nations agreed to
maintain stability and that the system lasted so long. It put the US at the
centre of the western world in terms of economic stability and the key
element was the US gold standard. However, the hopes were not entirely
realized. It took a long time to become operative and far from being a period
of international cooperation and global order, the years of the agreement
showed the difficulties of creating an international order that encouraged
free trade while also allowing nations to pursue policy goals involving
domestic spending. Economies at varying levels of competitiveness and
with trade surpluses that involved heavy dollar holdings led to imbalance.
There was also resentment at the central position of the US and fears that
US devaluation would erode the value of dollar holdings – but conversion
into gold would go against US interests, so there was increasing tension.
Thus while the agreement increased US influence and put it at the centre of
plans for a more stable world economy from which it could benefit it also
increased its responsibilities in promoting trade and prosperity and led it to
problems in tis economic relations with other countries.

© UCLES 2021 Page 13 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

9 Assess the impact of the Prague Spring on US‒Soviet relations. 30

Pursuing détente with the Soviet Union was very important to President
Lyndon B Johnson; it was an opportunity to end his presidency on a positive
note. However, the Soviet invasion to crack down on political reform in
Czechoslovakia put the negotiations on hold and it destroyed Johnson’s last
chance to leave a legacy he could be proud of. He did not want to upset the
Soviets and in the process pursued a policy of no resistance and
demonstrated that the United States was not prepared to defend democracy
if it was not in its interests. Nevertheless, it soured the relationship between
the two superpowers. Johnson was under so much pressure at home with
his attempts to create the ‘great society’ and resistance to American
involvement in Vietnam. The assassinations of civil rights leader, Martin
Luther King, and presidential candidate, Robert Kennedy, also reduced
people’s faith in the political system. Success with détente would help to
raise his standing and give the Americans a chance to establish an exit
strategy for Vietnam. On 20 August 1968 Johnson was making his final
preparations for a nuclear arms limitation summit meeting with the Soviet
leaders on the following day. The Soviet invasion coincided with the planned
meeting This forced him to postpone his plans and his hopes of being
recognised as a great peacemaker; it was left to Richard Nixon to receive
that honour. Johnson made every effort to protect his personal and political
goals by his minimal reaction to the invasion.

However, the United States did protest about the invasion in the UN
Security Council. It also gave a diplomatic warning to the Soviet Union that it
would be more forceful if there were similar action in Romania. Romania
had been pursuing a more independent foreign policy and the United States
hoped that Romania might become a neutral state in the Cold War. It also
resulted in fresh commitments across the NATO alliance, with the United
States confirming that it would continue to station its troops in West
Germany. Czechoslovakia returned to full Soviet control and the successful
invasion saved the shattering of communism in Eastern Europe. Johnson’s
fixation on détente enabled the Soviets to escape any direct intervention
from the United States. Events clearly demonstrated that both Brezhnev and
Johnson were prepared to put their own interests first. Brezhnev prioritised
maintaining Soviet control of the satellites against pursuing détente. For him
détente was just delayed by a few years; for Johnson it had a permanent
effect on his legacy. It also led to the Brezhnev Doctrine whereby the Soviet
Union maintained its right to intervene in any country where communism
had been threatened. While the Prague Spring played a pivotal role in
delaying détente, it also increased Soviet confidence that it could deal with
its satellite unimpeded by the United States. On the other hand, it was also
a wake-up call to the United States that Johnson had given the impression
that in his determination to attain the co-operation of the Soviets he would
allow the Warsaw Pact to do as it pleased.

© UCLES 2021 Page 14 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

10 ‘It was the failure of the US post-war policy in China which enabled the 30
Chinese Communist Party to gain power in 1949.’ Assess this view.

After the surrender of Japan on 10 August 1945, Chiang Kai-shek’s


Nationalist China was admitted to the UN as a permanent member of the
Security Council. The United States still hoped to maintain Nationalist China
as an ally to stop the advance of communism. Truman wished to avoid a
renewal of the Chinese civil war. However, US forces were over-stretched in
Europe and Asia and heavy military commitment in China was unrealistic.
General George Marshall was sent to persuade Mao and Chiang to form a
government of national unity. Marshall arrived in China on 20 December
1945. His goal was to unify the Nationalists and Communists hoping that a
strong, non-Communist China, would prevent the intervention of the Soviet
Union. Even though Marshall conducted negotiations with both sides, no
significant agreements were reached and in January 1947 Marshall left
China. Although the United States were aware of the corruption of Chiang’s
administration, they wished to contain communism They therefore increased
their aid to the Nationalists, supplying aircraft and sending teams to Taiwan
to train their troops. American public opinion was firmly against fighting a
war in China. The United States supported the losing side and they limited
their commitment in the area.

Responses may also consider other factors that influenced the communist
victory, such as how it was the Nationalists themselves that helped the
Communists secure victory. Chiang’s troops often turned and fled rather
than face the enemy. His army also had a reputation for arrogance and
cowardice and was accused of looting and stealing. He lost support in the
cities because of heavy taxes, inflation, unemployment and food shortages.
Economic discontent led to strikes and there were protests demanding an
end to the civil war and the creation of a government that included the
Communists. The Nationalists responded with repression including
censorship, mass arrests and assassinations. The Nationalists supported
business and the landlords; they ignored the suffering of the peasants.
Giving more US funds to the corrupt Nationalists would have been a huge
waste of money. The Nationalists played a large part in their own defeat.
However, the Communists themselves played a huge part in their victory.
The People’s Liberation Army was unified under a tightly controlled central
command. In 1945 the CCP’s liberated zone contained 19 base areas which
included about a quarter of the country’s territory. The Soviet Union turned
over all of its captured Japanese weapons to the CCP who also received
Manchuria from the Soviets. Mao appointed loyal generals including Lin
Biao and Zhu De whose tactics contributed greatly to the Communist
success. The ordinary soldiers in the army were treated with respect and, in
contrast, thousands of Nationalists deserted. Large numbers of well-trained
KMT deserted and joined the communists and they were able to take full
advantage of their skills. In June 1947 the Communists successfully
defeated the KMT New First Army; they now had tanks and heavy artillery at
their disposal. In 1948 they launched an attack south of the Great Wall that
cut off Nationalist troops from their supply bases in Xi’an. They then secured
the South East Central section of China and by the end of January 1949
most of China was in the hands of the Communists.

© UCLES 2021 Page 15 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

11 Analyse the reasons why the United Nations failed in Somalia. 30

President Siyad Barre fell from power in January 1991; he had ruled through
his own support network and played off clans against each other causing
factional power struggles. The economy of the country began to decline and
by 1988 violent opposition to his rule had turned into a civil war. In
November 1991, there was intense fighting in Mogadishu between the
factions, one supporting Interim President, Ali Mahdi Mohamed and the
other supporting the Chairman of the United Somali Congress, Mohamed
Farah Aidid. In March 1992 a ceasefire had been agreed but it was ignored
by the fighters on both sides. The first United Nations Operation in Somalia
(UNOSOM I) was authorised by Security Council Resolution 751 of 24 April
1992. UNOSOM 1 was dispatched to monitor the cease-fire and to protect
the personnel involved in the humanitarian work. The collapse of the Somali
central government meant that the UN was unable to obtain consent to
deploy troops and as a result their mandate was limited; local warlords
prevented them from moving much beyond the airport in Mogadishu.
Lawlessness and lack of security prevented aid from being distributed.
There was looting of supplies by armed gangs and attacks on ships and on
airports.

However, blame for the failure of UNISOM 1 can also be attributed to the
UN itself. Troops often refused to accept orders from UN commanders
before checking with their own governments causing delays; the
international response to Somalia's problems was also inadequate.
Although three separate Security Council resolutions were passed in the
first half of 1992, UN humanitarian agencies failed to implement the relief
programme. It was also reported in ‘The New York Times’ in December
1991 that the United States held back UN efforts with the State Department
because of safety concerns over the peacekeeping force. It was not until
January 1992 when Boutros Boutros-Ghali became UN Secretary General
that the UN became more heavily involved with humanitarian aid. Public
pressure was put on governments internationally as the media drew
attention to the catastrophe and the effects of widespread famine. There
were also arguments between the UN and other humanitarian workers in
Somalia and the UN reported that the failure of relief operations was due to
the bureaucracy involved. Resolution 751 called for the establishment of a
peacekeeping force to provide security for humanitarian activities in
Mogadishu which included the deployment of 50 unarmed military observers
to monitor the ceasefire agreement in the city and agreed in principle to the
idea of a UN force to escort the delivery of humanitarian aid. By late October
1992, it was clear that the new plan was not working as intended; the small
UN peacekeeping contingent could not ensure that humanitarian aid was
delivered throughout the country. Following the ineffective UNOSOM I
mission, Boutros-Ghali launched the United Nations Task Force (UNITAF) in
December 1992. This was an American-led force of 30,000 troops from 23
countries authorised by Security Council Resolution to provide security for
relief operations. The widespread famine and continued civil war in Somalia
were seen as a threat to international peace and provided the reason for
allowing the forces. The UNITAF forces were largely successful in supplying
humanitarian aid but in March 1993 they handed over to UNOSOM II This
put military and security objectives before political, economic and social
ones and turned into a peace enforcement mission.

© UCLES 2021 Page 16 of 17


9489/42 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme March 2021
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

12 Evaluate the role of the United States in the creation of Israel. 30

David Ben-Gurion was the main founder of the State of Israel. From 1935,
he was the head of the Jewish Agency and was, in effect, the leader of the
Jewish community in Palestine. He led the struggle for an independent
Jewish state to be created in Palestine and it was Ben-Gurion who formally
proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 being
the first to sign the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Britain’s decision to
withdraw from the Palestine Mandate and hand over the problems of the
area to the UN paved the way for partition. Palestine had been under the
control of the British since 1917 and formally became a British mandate of
the League of Nations in 1923. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated that
the British government favoured the establishment of a national home for
the Jewish people but did not want to prejudice the rights of existing non-
Jewish communities. In 1939 Britain issued a White Paper stating that it
wanted an independent Palestine within 10 years; it would be a state in
which Jews and Arabs shared responsibility for governing the country. It
also stated that Jewish immigration would be restricted. In 1945, the British
confirmed that there would be no increase in immigration and no separate
Jewish state. The Zionists, however, were convinced that they had
international public opinion on their side and decided on a policy of active
opposition to British rule in Palestine. The British government, unable to
reach agreement, referred the problem to the UN in 1947 and announced it
would withdraw from Palestine on 18 May 1948.

The UN devised the plan for partition and a Special Committee on Palestine
(UNSCOP) was formed in April 1947 for this purpose. The majority of the
committee members recommended that Palestine be partitioned into an
Arab State and a Jewish State, with a special international status for the city
of Jerusalem under the administrative authority of the UN. The Arab
community rejected the plan arguing that it violated the principles of self-
determination in the UN Charter. Knowing the extent of Arab opposition to
Resolution 181, the UN proceeded to hold a vote in the assembly on the
partition of Palestine and a two-thirds majority was obtained. It was also the
determination of the United States for the resolution to be passed that led to
pressure being put on UN members. Soon after President Truman took
office in 1946, he approved a recommendation to admit 100 000 displaced
persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the
creation of a Jewish state. It is debatable why Truman decided to support
the UN resolution; moral reasons have been put forward with Truman
advocating a homeland for the Jewish community because of all their
suffering at the hands of the Nazis. However strategic reasons have also
been suggested. Partition effectively prevented US need to accept Jewish
refugees which they believed would drain their economy. There were also
Cold War considerations as it prevented Soviet involvement in the area. It
also gained Truman support at home when elections were looming. In the
autumn of 1947, against the advice of the State Department, Truman
supported partition. A telegram signed by 26 US senators with influence on
foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the
partition plan. The US Senate was considering a large aid package at the
time and many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them.
Therefore, while the United States did not initiate the move to create Israel,
it was US pressure that secured support for the partition plan.

© UCLES 2021 Page 17 of 17

You might also like