Cambridge Assessment International Education: History 9389/23 October/November 2018

Cambridge Assessment International Education
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level
HISTORY 9389/23
Paper 2 Outline Study October/November 2018
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 October/November 2018 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE™, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level
components.
This document consists of 26 printed pages.
© UCLES 2018 [Turn over

9389/23 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme October/November
PUBLISHED 2018
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.
Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).
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.
Rules must be applied consistently e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed
instructions or in the application of generic level descriptors.
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).
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 2018 Page 2 of 26

PUBLISHED 2018
1–12(a) Generic Levels of Response Marks
Level 4: Evaluates factors 9–10

Answers are well focused and explain a range of factors supported by
relevant information.
Answers demonstrate a clear understanding of the connections between
causes.
Answers consider the relative significance of factors and reach a supported
conclusion.
Level 3: Explains factor(s) 6–8

Answers demonstrate good knowledge and understanding of the demands
of the question.
Answers include explained factor(s) supported by relevant information.
Candidates may attempt to reach a judgement about the significance of
factors but this may not be effectively supported.
Level 2: Describes factor(s) 3–5

Answers show some knowledge and understanding of the demands of the
question. (They address causation.)
Answers are may be entirely descriptive in approach with description of
factor(s).
Level 1: Describes the topic/issue 1–2

Answers contain some relevant material about the topic but are descriptive
in nature, making no reference to causation.
Level 0: Answers contain no relevant content 0

PUBLISHED 2018
1–12(b) Generic Levels of Response Marks
Level 5: Responses which develop a sustained judgement 18–20

Answers are well focused and closely argued.
(Answers show a maintained and complete understanding of the question.)
Answers are supported by precisely selected evidence.
Answers lead to a relevant conclusion/judgement which is developed and
supported.
Level 4: Responses which develop a balanced argument 15–17

Answers show explicit understanding of the demands of the question.
Answers develop a balanced argument supported by a good range of
appropriately selected evidence.
Answers may begin to form a judgement in response to the question. (At
this level the judgement may be partial or not fully supported.)
Level 3: Responses which begin to develop assessment 10–14

Answers show a developed understanding of the demands of the question.
Answers provide some assessment, supported by relevant and
appropriately selected evidence. However, these answers are likely to lack
depth of evidence and/or balance.
Level 2: Responses which show some understanding of the question 6–9

Answers show some understanding of the focus of the question.
They are either entirely descriptive with few explicit links to the question or
they may contain some explicit comment with relevant but limited support.
Level 1: Descriptive or partial responses 1–5

Answers contain descriptive material about the topic which is only loosely
linked to the focus of the question.
Alternatively, there may be some explicit comment on the question which
lacks support.
Answers may be fragmentary and disjointed.
Level 0: Answers contain no relevant content 0

PUBLISHED 2018
Question Answer Marks
1(a) Why did Napoleon face so little opposition to his rule in France? 10
Some of the following factors may be considered:
• He took care to ensure that the worst features of the Ancien Regime did
not reappear.
• What many saw as the ‘best’ of the Revolution was accepted. The Civil
Code solved many problems and lasted. It was a good blend of the old
and the new.
• Care was taken to ensure the hunger of the old days did not return. The
supply and quality of bread was taken care of.
• The Concordat prevented the return of the ‘Catholic’ issue and there
was religious toleration for Protestants.
• His successes abroad were popular and raised his prestige and that of
France.
• Censorship and the work of Fouché also helped to repress any dissent.
• With the idea of ‘careers open to talent’, there were outlets for the able,
especially amongst the middle class.
• The plebiscites gave the impression that consent was there.
• The mix of glory and good government was popular, and many were
tired of the coups and instability of the 1790s.

PUBLISHED 2018
1(b) ‘The Directory successfully restored order to France.’ How far do you 20
agree?
The focus of the response should be on the work of the Directory and
contrasting it with what preceded it.
On the one hand:
• By the end of 1795, there was more peace and stability within France
than there had been since 1789.
• The Italian campaign was a success, and there was competent
management of both the war and foreign policy.
• Radicals like Babeuf were dealt with and a working constitution
developed.
• There were no major uprisings in the period, competent local
government was established and signs of a workable police system
were emerging.
• There were genuine attempts to deal with the issue of hunger and to
restore a rational system of central control of the regions, while at the
same time showing awareness of local interests and needs.
On the other hand:
• There were significant royalist and neo-Jacobin gains in many elections

and these were ominous. There was an evident lack of consensus
about how France should be governed.
• Many saw the Directory as merely a temporary measure lacking in
legitimacy.
• Partial bankruptcy and debt repudiation occurred in 1797.
• Coups continued, such as 18 Fructidor V, 22 Floreal VI, 30 Prairial VII
and the final one of Brumaire. The latter coincided with a royalist
uprising in the southwest.
• Arguably, the comparative ease with which the Directory was
overthrown might also suggest a lack of success.

PUBLISHED 2018
2(a) Why did governments start to regulate industry? 10
Several reasons might be considered:
• In Germany, it was largely to ensure the interests of the

Prussian/German state – heavy industry was vital for military and
strategic purposes.
• Regulation in the form of working hours and conditions came primarily
to ensure that radical/socialist groups did not gain too much support.
• In Britain, regulation came about partly through humanitarian pressure,
which led to early regulation of working conditions, especially for
women and children.
• There was also regulation to ensure the interests of the wider
community and the feeling that industries such as rail and the banks
were too important to the nation to leave totally to private enterprise,
hence Peel’s regulatory legislation of the 1840s.
• The French always had a tradition of state regulation. The republican
government of the 1870s onwards played an important part in state
regulation, partly to ensure that the extreme radicalism seen, for
example, in 1848 and the Commune were prevented from happening
again.

PUBLISHED 2018
2(b) Assess the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the higher/upper 20

classes. Refer to any two countries from Britain, France or Germany in
your answer.
The focus of the response should be on the political, social and economic
impact of the Industrial Revolution on the upper classes of two of the three
named countries.
In all three countries the impact varied.
• In France, many of the old aristocratic élite had gone during the
Revolution and industrialisation simply led to a more rapid increase in
the growth and influence of the middle classes, although in some rural
areas in France the old landowning élite persisted. In these rural areas
in France by 1840 as much as 70% of land was still owned by a tiny
élite, but that proportion dropped significantly after the Republic was set
up in 1871.
• In Germany, the old landowning élite dominated throughout the
nineteenth century. Intermarriage with the middle classes was rare and
arguably under Bismarck and his successors industrialisation was
harnessed in order to retain the supremacy of the upper classes.
• Concessions had to be made, both politically in the Reichstag and in
the emergence of a welfare state to fend off radicalism, but by the end
of the century the upper classes were firmly in control in Germany.
• In Britain, the picture was very different, and it was here that the old
divisions of society, between clergy, noble and commoner, most
evidently disappeared.
• Intermarriage between impecunious aristocrats and wealthy bourgeois
was common.
• Nobles like Bridgewater and Dudley were leading entrepreneurs in their
own right.
• The list of investors in many of the great steel and railway companies
contained large numbers of nobles.
• Political power after the 1832 Reform Act passed clearly away from the
aristocracy. Politics was dominated by men like Peel and Gladstone,
who were the sons of middle-class businessmen.

PUBLISHED 2018
3(a) Why was there an arms race in the years before 1914? 10
Several of the following might be considered:
• The British saw their navy as vital for both their defence and also for the
protection of their vast Empire. When Germany started to expand its
navy and its colonies and look for bases in the Mediterranean, it was
seen as a direct threat.
• The French were determined to avenge the humiliation of 1871, and a
large army backed by conscription for all males and prepared to attack
Germany was central to French thinking.
• This naturally was seen as a threat by the Germans, which led to their
desire for a large, well equipped and trained army to counteract a
French threat.
• Germany had become united through military success and the military
dominated. The Germans wanted their ‘place in the sun’ so wished to
expand their navy.
• The Kaiser placed great emphasis on military strength.
• Legislatures were invariably supportive when it came to funds.
• There was also considerable public pressure.
• In most countries, there was nationalistic and xenophobic press which
tended to support and encourage the arms race.
• After the disaster of the Russo–Japanese War, Russia embarked on a
modernisation programme which raised concerns in Germany.

PUBLISHED 2018
3(b) ‘It was the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia that was the critical factor in 20
bringing about the outbreak of war.’ How far do you agree?
On the one hand:
• Giving that ultimatum, knowing full well that the Serbs could never
accept it, could be seen as the critical factor. The government knew it
was bound to lead to conflict.
• All in Austria knew that Russia was likely to rally to support the Serbs,
which could well bring in the French and widen the conflict.
• The ultimatum was designed to provoke a strong reaction, and it did.
• The Austrians were determined to assert their domination of the region,
whatever the cost.
On the other hand, there is a very large number of other critical factors:
• The ‘blank cheque’ gave the Austrians the confidence to issue the
ultimatum in the first place.
• The Alliance System could be seen as more important as it ensured
that any local conflict was likely to widen.
• The conflict could possibly have been contained in the Balkans; the
earlier Balkan Wars had not spread too widely.
• Russian mobilisation triggered the Schlieffen Plan.
• The Schlieffen Plan with its lack of a ‘fail safe’ device was also
important.
• It could be argued that given the tension and rivalries that existed in
Europe at the time, if it was not Sarajevo, then another equally quite
manageable incident could escalate into war.

PUBLISHED 2018
4(a) Why did the Duma achieve little before 1914? 10
Several factors might be considered:
• Neither the Tsar nor his immediate entourage felt that it had any right to
influence policy. The Duma’s creation was simply to try and fend off
public dissatisfaction; it was not intended to have any real power.
• There was no representative tradition in Russia, and party divisions
made it difficult to reach a consensus.
• With the Tsar altering the franchise for it, to ensure obedience, it rapidly
alienated many groups who had real grievances.
• It was never seriously consulted over major policies, and when it voiced
an opinion it was ignored.
• The absence of any formal constitution which gave it a clear role was
damaging.
• There was no clarity as to who or what it represented and it lacked
legitimacy in the eyes of many Russians.
• It did not meet on a regular basis and there was no consensus even on
what its agenda might be.

PUBLISHED 2018
4(b) How far was Kerensky responsible for the collapse of the Provisional 20
Government?
The focus of the response should be on the role played by Kerensky in the
collapse of the Provisional Government in 1917. The extent to which he
could be held personally responsible should be contrasted with factors
which were beyond his control and which also led to the collapse.
On the one hand:
• Many of the decisions he took, e.g. over Kornilov’s mutiny, were in

retrospect unwise.
• He failed to understand the crisis at the front or within the army.
• His grasp of what was actually happening in the countryside with the
peasant seizures of land was limited and he just did not have the
knowledge, with his background, to offer any suggestions of how to deal
with it.
• His feeling of commitment towards Russia’s allies, the French in
particular, was not shared by the vast majority of the Russian people.
• Someone with liberal ideas and ideals was not suited to dealing with
Russia’s problems in 1917. Liberal ideas had little popular resonance.
However, it could be argued that the legacy of the regime which he was
temporarily in charge of was such that no one could manage it.
• He was pledged to moving towards utilising democratic methods, but it

was a country where they had no experience of such ideas.
• The existence of the Petrograd Soviet undermined the validity of his
regime.
• Facing the massive problems that it did, perhaps only dictatorial
methods could stand any chance of solving Russia’s dilemmas.
• He had limited powers and inherited a failed state, so he should not
really be blamed for its collapse.
• There was no loyalty felt by institutions such as the army or the Church
towards him or his government.
• The Left had solutions to Russia’s problems which appealed and he
lacked the means to counteract them.

PUBLISHED 2018
5(a) Why did the USA gain special rights over Cuba after 1898? 10
The special rights gained by the USA are usually linked with the 1901 Platt
Amendment, which the newly-independent Cuban government had to
accept.
The USA gained special rights over Cuba because:
• It had major economic interests in Cuba, e.g. the sugar industry.

• It saw Cuba as important in that whoever controlled the island
controlled access to the Caribbean and to the proposed canal across
Central America. Thus it took Guantanamo Bay as a key naval base.
• Cuba was politically unstable and the USA did not want a politically
unstable state so close to the USA. Thus it took the right to intervene to
ensure stability, as in 1906–09.
These rights stopped short of the USA making Cuba part of a formal empire.
The USA was still opposed to being an imperial power.

PUBLISHED 2018
5(b) Assess the impact of America’s involvement in the First World War on 20
its relations with Europe in the 1920s.
The USA joined the war in 1917, providing the resources to help ensure an
Allied victory. The presence of US troops in Europe, if brief, marked a major
shift in international politics, as did the presence of a US president in Europe
in 1919.
Arguments that the USA’s presence in the First World War greatly affected
its relations over the next ten years, i.e. to the late 1920s, include:
• Relations became closer as the USA became more involved in

European politics. Thus President Wilson in the Versailles Conference
helped redraw the map of central Europe on national lines.
• Relations became strained as the USA decided not to join the League
of Nations. France in particular resented the USA; the UK less so.
• The question of inter-allied war debts and German reparations became
a particular focus for tensions between Europe and the USA, especially
in 1923–24. The USA had to become involved in addressing the
problem, via the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan.
Arguments that US involvement in the war had little effect on its relations
with Europe include:
• Close involvement in Europe lasted for only three years, 1917–20.

Thereafter Europe was left much to its own devices – with the exception
of money.
• The USA concentrated on its own affairs, showing little concern with
Europe in the 1920s.
• If the USA did look outwards, it looked more across the Pacific than the
Atlantic. This resulted in the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty in
1922.
• Public opinion opposed involvement in European affairs, partly as a
result of the mix of nationalities within the US.
• The 1920s saw a period of Republican domination with three
Republican presidents who were not interested in involvement in
European affairs.

PUBLISHED 2018
6(a) Why did the North remain politically divided during the Civil War? 10
The best example of division was the 1864 presidential election, when
Lincoln was opposed by one of his former military leaders, George
McClellan. The most vocal opposition came from Northern Democrats
known as Copperheads, who wanted to compromise with the South.
The North remained politically divided because:
• Some Northerners were opposed to the war, e.g. Copperheads [aka

Peace Democrats]. The Peace Democrats themselves were divided
between those who wanted to end the war straightaway and those who
wanted a negotiated settlement.
• Some were opposed to the methods of war, e.g. the draft
[=conscription], with riots in New York in 1863.
• Some were opposed to Lincoln’s leadership, especially when military
victory was slow to arrive, e.g. George McClellan.
The divisions were perhaps greatest in 1863–64 as victory proved so

difficult to achieve. In 1861–62, a limited war was fought. In 1865, the war
ended in victory, which silenced the critics.
6(b) How consistent were the policies of Reconstruction in the period from 20
1865 to 1877?
Evidence that the policies of Reconstruction were consistent in the years

1865–77 includes:
• The twin aims of Reconstruction – to free the slaves and to impose a

new settlement on the South – remained the same.
• The Southern states were made to change their constitutions and to
accept the 13th Amendment.
• The freed ex-slaves were provided with some kind of assistance to help
them adjust to their new position in society.
• Grant passed legislation to outlaw the activities of groups like the KKK.
Evidence that the policies of Reconstruction were inconsistent in 1865–77

includes:
• The imposition of military rule from 1867.

• The withdrawal of support for ex-slaves with the end of the Freedmen’s
Bureau in the early 1870s.
• The gradual granting of constitutional rights to ex-slaves: 1865 the 13th
Amendment to 1870 the 15th Amendment.
• Abandonment of Reconstruction in the Compromise of 1877 as a result
of the 1876 election outcome.

PUBLISHED 2018
7(a) Why was a federal income tax introduced in 1913? 10
Reasons include:
• Legal: the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1893 allowing for a

federal income tax to be levied. This amendment overturned an1895
Supreme Court judgement in the case of Pollock vs Farmers Loan Trust
Company [1895].
• Financial: the need for a revenue stream to offset the reduction in tariffs
proposed at the time. The overall reduction was from 40% tariffs to
25%.
• Political: the Democratic Party, which supported a federal income tax,
controlled both the Presidency and the US Congress.
• Electoral: by the early twentieth century, most progressives supported
the idea of a federal income tax.
7(b) ‘Economic benefits, social problems.’ How accurately does this 20

summarise the main consequences of mass immigration in the later
nineteenth century?
Evidence that late nineteenth century immigration brought economic

benefits and social problems includes:
• The economic benefits include 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 speeded industrial growth.
• The social problems included overcrowded slum areas of many cities,
especially in the industrial north east. 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.
Evidence that late nineteenth century immigration brought economic

problems and social benefits:
• There was downward pressure on wages and thus living standards of

the urban working class. These pressures also weakened the position
of labour unions.
• 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.
It is possible to argue that mass immigration either brought no economic or

social benefits or that it brought only benefits. Such positions would be hard
to sustain and supporting arguments would be essential.

PUBLISHED 2018
8(a) Why were the 1920s a time of political stability? 10
Key reasons include:
• Steady economic growth – apart from the 1920–21 recession – meant

rising living standards, especially for city dwellers. Unemployment
remained at around 5%. By 1930, almost half of US homes had radios
and two thirds had electricity compared with one third in 1920.
• The continuity of three Republican presidents – Harding, Coolidge and
Hoover – who were not great political reformers, preferring to leave the
economy to continue to grow. Note: the 1920 campaign slogan ‘return
to normalcy’ could be applied to all three presidential elections.
• The weakness of the Democratic party in presidential elections,
suffering a reaction to the Wilson presidency and winning only a
minority of states each time: 1920 11 states, 1924 12 states, 1928 8
states.
• The only memorable Democratic candidate for President was Governor
Al Smith of New York, but he was a divisive figure.
• The absence of any great crisis, either at home or abroad. Domestic
crises tended to be about corruption, while the only major foreign crisis
revolved around German reparations.
• Limited involvement overseas.

PUBLISHED 2018
8(b) ‘More improvised than planned.’ How valid is this judgement on the 20
New Deal?
The New Deal was the set of reforms introduced by the Roosevelt
administration in 1933–38 to address the great economic and social
problems facing the USA. They all involved a greater role for government
bodies, whether federal, state or local.
A planned set of reforms requires previous preparation, a coherent set of

detailed policies and a commitment to maintain them – thought the last is
the least important.
Evidence that the New Deal was more improvised than planned includes:
• The lack of detailed and coherent plans as put forward in FDR’s 1932
election campaign. FDR’s platform consisted mostly of a set of fairly
traditional Democratic Party reforms.
• His commitment to bold and persistent experimentation during that
campaign.
• Examples from the New Deal of experimentation, e.g. scrapping the
Civil Works Administration of 1933 just six months later.
• His ‘court packing plan’ introduced in response to the US Supreme
Court’s rejection of NIRA and then soon abandoned.
Arguments that the New Deal was more planned than improvised include:
• In general terms rather than in specific policies, the New Deal was
planned to use the public sector to overcome the limitations of the
private sector – in terms of both the economy and society.
• It was planned to focus on the domestic problems of the USA, even at
the expense of failing to address international problems.
• There was a political plan behind the New Deal to strengthen certain
groups, e.g. labour unions and working people, even at the expense of
employers.

PUBLISHED 2018
9(a) Why did Bismarck establish the Dreikaiserbund in 1873? 10
Bismarck was well aware that the newly-unified Germany, while both
economically and militarily the dominant power in continental Europe,
remained vulnerable.
• Its geographical position made it open to attack from three sides.

Bismarck’s aim, therefore, was to isolate potential enemies, especially
France, which he knew would be keen to seek revenge for its
humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.
• He wanted to create a series of friendly alliances, which would
guarantee Germany’s security.
• In addition to isolating France, Bismarck hoped that regular meetings
between the three monarchs would help to reduce disputes between
Russia and Austria-Hungary over their interests in the Balkans.
• He was afraid that such disputes might lead either Russia or Austria-
Hungary to form an alliance with France, thus posing a serious risk to
Germany’s security.

PUBLISHED 2018
9(b) How far did Kaiser Wilhelm II maintain Bismarck’s foreign policies? 20
Bismarck had engineered the unification of Germany by 1871 through war.
• Only then, realising the vulnerable position that Germany was in

because of its geographical location (open to attack from three sides),
did Bismarck adopt a more cautious approach to foreign policy,
establishing a series of agreements which became the Triple Alliance.
• The secrecy behind the terms of the various agreements which
comprised the Triple Alliance had already caused unease in the rest of
Europe before the dismissal of Bismarck in 1890.
• Kaiser Wilhelm maintained the Triple Alliance, as evidenced by his
support for Austria-Hungary over issues relating to the Balkans. At
times, like Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm was cautious in this support when,
for example, he advised Austria-Hungary not to attack Serbia in 1913.
While Bismarck initially kept Germany out of the race for imperial
possessions, pressure from German businessmen meant that Germany
entered the ‘scramble for Africa’ in 1881. In continuing to seek overseas
possessions for Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm was therefore continuing an
existing policy.
Kaiser Wilhelm was far less diplomatic and cautious in his approach to
foreign policy.
• In particular, he failed to follow Bismarck’s prime intention of isolating

France.
• He allowed the Reinsurance Treaty to lapse, causing alarm in Russia;
this was partly responsible for Russia’s alliance with France in 1894.
• Sending a congratulatory telegram to Kruger, the Boer leader, in 1896
was another incautious act, which led to outrage in Britain.
• Similarly, his concept of Weltpolitik involved extending Germany’s
imperial ambitions in a manner which appeared threatening to the
interests of other European nations.
• The Kaiser also endorsed a massive development of the German navy
following Tirpitz’s Navy Law of 1900, claiming that Germany needed a
large navy to protect its overseas possessions.
• This led to a naval arms race with Britain, leading to increased tension
and to Britain ending its policy of ‘splendid isolation’, signing
agreements with Japan, France and Russia.
• A further example of the Kaiser’s aggressive and incautious approach
was the Moroccan crisis of 1911.
• Following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Kaiser
effectively offered Austria-Hungary a blank cheque; with the guarantee
of German support, Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, leading to World
War I.

PUBLISHED 2018
10(a) Why did the USA move back towards a policy of isolationism after the 10
First World War?
President Wilson was determined that the USA should play an active role in
world affairs, believing that this was both a moral responsibility and also in
America’s best interests. However, the American people favoured a return
to the traditional policy of isolationism.
• Involvement in World War I had become increasingly unpopular in the

USA, most Americans (including Wilson himself) believing that it had
been caused by the greed and selfishness of European nations.
• Wilson’s opponents in the Republican Party (such as Senators Lodge
and Borah) argued against acceptance of the peace terms proposed at
the Paris Peace Conference, believing that they made a future war
more likely.
• Membership of the League of Nations, they argued, would force the
USA to become involved in international issues and disputes which
were of no interest to the USA.
• Moreover, they argued, it would enable other countries to interfere in
the affairs of the USA, threatening the right of Americans to govern
themselves.
• Even at the time of the Paris Peace Conference, the Republicans had
gained control of the Senate. The Senate refused to ratify the
settlement which emerged from the Conference. The USA did not join
the League of Nations and, in 1925, signed a separate treaty with
Germany.
• In the 1920 presidential election, the Republican candidate (Warren
Harding) gained a landslide victory over his Democratic rival.

PUBLISHED 2018
10(b) How consistent was the French government’s attitude towards 20

Germany in the period from 1919 to 1933?
Having been invaded by Germany twice in less than 50 years, it is not

surprising that France’s main priority was to ensure that Germany could
never again become a threat. This remained the primary focus of French
foreign policy throughout the period.
• It was largely at Clemenceau’s insistence that the Treaty of Versailles

was so harsh on Germany.
• When Germany failed to meet its reparations requirement, France
occupied the Ruhr in 1923, effectively an act of war. France only left the
Ruhr after Britain had opposed the occupation, thus leaving France
even more isolated and vulnerable.
• After the Dawes Plan (1924), France seemed more willing to form better
relations with Germany, signing the Locarno Treaties and the Kellogg
Pact and accepting the Young Plan of 1929, which reduced German
reparations. In reality, this change of attitude towards Germany was
less than sincere; it was simply a diplomatic necessity given the
international outcry following its occupation of the Ruhr.
• France continued to distrust Germany as was clearly evident at the
World Disarmament Conference (1932–33), where the French refused
to reduce its military capability despite the promise they had made at
the Paris Peace Conference and in joining the League of Nations.
• Throughout the 1920s, France developed a series of alliances with
states in Eastern Europe – Poland (1921), Czechoslovakia (1924),
Romania (1926), Yugoslavia (1927) – designed to protect France from
any future German aggression.
On the other hand:
• The French hard-line approach towards Germany in the period from

1919 to 1924 ensured that harsh terms were imposed on Germany in
the Treaty of Versailles. When Germany defaulted on its reparations,
France sought compensation by occupying the Ruhr. The occupation of
the Ruhr lost France the support of Britain. It backfired, leaving France
even more isolated and vulnerable.
• France therefore adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards
Germany, symbolised by the good working relationship which evolved
between their respective foreign ministers, Briand and Stresemann.
• France accepted the Dawes Plan of 1924 as the best means of
ensuring that Germany did meet its reparation requirements.
• The Locarno Treaties of 1925 gave France the security it desired,
ensuring that the borders established at the Paris Peace Conference
were guaranteed internationally.
• France was even prepared to accept the Young Plan of 1929, even
though this reduced German payments substantially.
• It was only in the early 1930s, when confronted by economic problems
and the rise to power of Hitler, that France reverted to its original hard-
line approach towards Germany.

PUBLISHED 2018
11(a) Why, in September 1938, was the Munich Conference held? 10
Candidates might explain several of the following:
• By 1938, Hitler’s Germany had already successfully challenged much of

the Treaty of Versailles, e.g. it had re-developed its armed forces,
occupied the Rhineland in 1936 and achieved Anschluss in March
1938, and formed the Rome-Berlin Axis. There had been no effective
opposition to any of this, and Hitler was convinced that Europe’s other
major powers would take no action against him.
• He now argued that the 3.5 million German-speaking people in the
Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia were being discriminated against. The
Czech President, Benes, believed that Hitler was deliberately stirring up
trouble amongst this group to justify a German invasion of his country.
• Fearful of involvement in another major war, the political leaders of
Britain (Chamberlain) and France (Daladier) put pressure on Benes to
make concessions. Chamberlain argued that Hitler’s desire to bring the
German-speaking people into the Third Reich was justified, simply an
attempt to right the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles.
• The four-power conference was held to defuse the growing fear that the
issues between Germany and Czechoslovakia would lead to a major
war.
• Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler and Mussolini met in Munich to discuss
the problem of Czechoslovakia. No representative of Czechoslovakia
was invited to attend.
• The meeting agreed that Germany should take immediate possession
of the Sudetenland. The Czech government was simply informed of this
decision.

PUBLISHED 2018
11(b) ‘Britain adopted appeasement as a response to the shortcomings of 20

the Treaty of Versailles.’ How far do you agree?
The French desire for revenge and future security had ensured that the
Treaty of Versailles was as harsh as possible.
• Many British politicians believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been
too harsh on Germany, and that Hitler was merely addressing genuine
grievances.
• They convinced themselves that Hitler’s actions were justifiable, and
that he wanted peace as much as they did.
• Germany had been forced to disarm as a result of the Treaty, but no
other country had fulfilled the commitment of general disarmament as
shown in the failure of the Disarmament Conference of 1932–33.
• Britain was concerned that the scale of reparations affected the German
economy and its ability to trade overseas (with Britain).
• The principle of self-determination had only been applied to defeated
nations, which had left millions of Germans in other countries.
There were also other significant reasons for Britain’s adoption of

appeasement.
• Britain was suffering from the effects of the world economic crisis which
followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and could afford the high costs
involved in extensive rearmament in preparation for war.
• The economic problems brought unemployment and social hardship
which seemed to increase the risk of revolution, the spread of which
was being encouraged by the Soviet Union. Hitler’s Germany was seen
as a vital buffer against Soviet expansionism.
• Many British believed a strong German economy would restore vital
trading links between the two countries. They formed a strong political
lobby in favour of maintaining good relations with Germany.
• Public opinion in Britain was strongly against involvement in another
war. There was no desire to repeat the horrors of the First World War.
• Events in Spain demonstrated that any future conflict would be even
worse, with enormous civilian casualties caused by the bombing of
major cities.
• For the British government to openly confront Hitler would, therefore,
have been highly unpopular and politically inexpedient. Fear of war had
been a key reason why Britain had taken no action over Manchuria
(1931) or Abyssinia (1936).

PUBLISHED 2018
12(a) Why, in the period from 1926 to 1928, was the Kuomintang able to 10
reduce the power of the warlords?
When the Northern Expedition began in 1926, the KMT had significant
advantages over the warlords. These included the following:
• Prior to becoming leader of the KMT in 1925, Chiang Kai-shek had

received military training in Moscow and had led the military academy at
Whampoa, where KMT officers were trained.
• By 1926, the KMT had developed a sizeable army, the National
Revolutionary Army (NRA).
• The NRA was far better organised than the armies of the warlords. It
had military advisors from Soviet Russia, and was equipped with
modern weapons from the USSR and Germany.
• Ordinary Chinese people were weary of the violence and chaos incited
by the warlords; they welcomed and supported KMT forces. Many
joined the KMT army as it marched through China.
• The KMT gained support from peasants and factory workers attracted
by the promise of social reform.
• The KMT’s alliance with the Chinese Communist Party seemed to offer
hope of land redistribution and industrial cooperatives.
• Shopkeepers, merchants, businessmen, wealthy land and factory
owners felt that the KMT would provide greater security, protecting their
investments from the violence encouraged by the warlords.
• The army at Chiang’s disposal grew from 100 000 in July 1926 to over
250 000 by December 1926.
• The KMT seemed to offer the promise of a united, organised and
peaceful China, which greatly appealed to the growing nationalism of
the Chinese people.
• As the Northern Expedition progressed, it gained the support of people
with local knowledge, which proved important in its campaigns against
the warlord armies.

PUBLISHED 2018
12(b) To what extent were the aims of the Kuomintang similar to those of the 20
May the Fourth Movement?
Similarities might include:
• The May the Fourth Movement was born of Chinese nationalism. It

began with a series of student protests in 1919, demonstrating against
the Paris Peace Settlement and the anarchy brought about by the
warlords. They wanted a strong united country.
• The KMT had developed on the strength of Sun Yat-sen’s Three
Principles, which were essentially the same as the demands of the May
the Fourth Movement. In particular, the KMT stood for the desire that
China should become a strong and unified country.
• During the Northern Expedition, from 1926 to 1928, the KMT under
Chiang Kai-shek had gained control over most of China, defeating the
majority of the warlords. By 1928, China had become a unified country
under the political leadership of Chiang.
Differences:
• The form of nationalism advocated by the May the Fourth Movement

rejected traditional Chinese culture and values and called for industrial
development and democratic government. Sun Yat-sen’s Three
Principles shared these aims. Chiang believed that the preservation of
Chinese traditions and culture was vital to the country’s resurgence.
• Once in power, Chiang’s KMT government clearly favoured China’s
businessmen and wealthy factory/landowners. There was little in the
way of social reform and no attempt to work towards a democratic form
of government.
• Chiang began the Purification Movement in 1927, ejecting all
communists from the KMT and purging communist leaders and trade
unionists.
• The large peasant population saw no improvement in their living and
working conditions, suffering from the effects of bad harvests while
landowners and profiteering merchants charged high prices for wheat
and rice stockpiled in the cities.
• While many warlords continued to hold power in parts of China well into
the 1930s, China also remained vulnerable to foreign incursion (e.g.
Manchuria, 1931).
• The seeds of a civil war had already been sown since the KMT was
unable to prevent the CCP gaining a foothold in the northern provinces
following its Long March. This was a far cry from the aims established
by the May the Fourth Movement.

Cambridge Assessment International Education: History 9389/23 October/November 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge Assessment International Education: History 9389/23 October/November 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge Assessment International Education: History 9389/23 October/November 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge Assessment International Education

Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level

This document consists of 26 printed pages.

© UCLES 2018 [Turn over

Generic Marking Principles

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 1:

Marks must be awarded in line with:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 2:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 3:

Marks must be awarded positively:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 4:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 5:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 6:

© UCLES 2018 Page 2 of 26

1–12(a) Generic Levels of Response Marks

Level 4: Evaluates factors 9–10

Level 3: Explains factor(s) 6–8

Level 2: Describes factor(s) 3–5

Level 1: Describes the topic/issue 1–2

Level 0: Answers contain no relevant content 0

© UCLES 2018 Page 3 of 26

1–12(b) Generic Levels of Response Marks

Level 5: Responses which develop a sustained judgement 18–20

Level 4: Responses which develop a balanced argument 15–17

Level 3: Responses which begin to develop assessment 10–14

Level 2: Responses which show some understanding of the question 6–9

Level 1: Descriptive or partial responses 1–5

Level 0: Answers contain no relevant content 0

© UCLES 2018 Page 4 of 26

Question Answer Marks

Some of the following factors may be considered:

© UCLES 2018 Page 5 of 26

Question Answer Marks

On the one hand:

On the other hand:

• There were significant royalist and neo-Jacobin gains in many elections

© UCLES 2018 Page 6 of 26

Question Answer Marks

2(a) Why did governments start to regulate industry? 10

Several reasons might be considered:

• In Germany, it was largely to ensure the interests of the

© UCLES 2018 Page 7 of 26

Question Answer Marks

2(b) Assess the impact of the Industrial Revolution on the higher/upper 20

In all three countries the impact varied.

© UCLES 2018 Page 8 of 26

Question Answer Marks

Several of the following might be considered:

© UCLES 2018 Page 9 of 26

Question Answer Marks

On the one hand:

© UCLES 2018 Page 10 of 26

Question Answer Marks

4(a) Why did the Duma achieve little before 1914? 10

Several factors might be considered:

© UCLES 2018 Page 11 of 26

Question Answer Marks

On the one hand:

• Many of the decisions he took, e.g. over Kornilov’s mutiny, were in