Cambridge International AS & A Level

HISTORY 9489/32
Paper 3 Interpret ations Question February/March 2024
MARK SCHEME
Maximum Mark: 40

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 bef ore marking began, which woul d have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.

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

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

Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes f or the February/March 2024 series f or most
Cambridge IGCSE, Cambridge International A and AS Level components, and some Cambridge O Level
components.

This document consists of 7 printed pages.

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 [Turn over

9489/32 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme February/March 2024
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
descriptions 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.

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 Page 2 of 7

9489/32 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme February/March 2024
PUBLISHED

General levels of response

Process for awarding marks:

• Markers review the answer against the AO4 marking criteria, and award a mark according to
these criteria.
• Generally, the subsequent mark awarded for AO1 will be the same level. In exceptional cases,
markers could award marks in different levels for the two AOs. This is because the ability to
recall, select and deploy relevant historical material will be central to any effective analysis and
evaluation of the interpretation.
• Responses that focus on contextual knowledge without reference to the interpretation cannot be
rewarded.

Underlining is used in this mark scheme to indicate the main interpretation of the extracts.

AO4 Analyse and evaluate how aspects of the past have been interpreted and Marks
represented.

Level 6 • Responses use the extract in a detailed and accurate manner and 18–20
demonstrate a complete understanding of the interpretation and of the
approach(es) used by the historian in reaching this interpretation.
• These responses explain all elements of the historian’s interpretation.

Level 5 • Responses use the extract in a detailed and accurate manner and 15–17
demonstrate a sound understanding of the interpretation and of the
approach(es) used by the historian in reaching this interpretation.
• These responses engage with elements of the historian’s interpretation,
but without explaining it as a whole – they are consistent and accurate,
but not complete and may cover less important sub-messages.

Level 4 • Responses use the extract, but only demonstrate partial understanding of 12–14
the interpretation and approach(es) of the historian.
• These answers identify elements of the historian’s interpretation, but
without adequately explaining them, typically explaining other less
important message(s) as equally or more important.

Level 3 • Responses demonstrate understanding that the extract contains 9–11

interpretations, but those explained are only sub-messages.
• Responses may use a part of the extract to argue for an interpretation
that is not supported by the whole of the extract, or may refer to multiple
interpretations, often a different one in each paragraph.

Level 2 • Responses summarise the main points in the extract. 5–8

• Responses focus on what the extract says, but explanations of the extract
as an interpretation lack validity.

Level 1 • Responses include references to some aspects of the extract. 1–4

• Responses may include fragments of material that are relevant to the
historian’s interpretation.

Level 0 No creditable content. 0

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 Page 3 of 7

9489/32 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme February/March 2024
PUBLISHED

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

Level 6 Demonstrates detailed and accurate historical knowledge that is entirely 18–20
relevant.

Level 5 Demonstrates detailed and mostly accurate historical knowledge that is 15–17
mainly relevant.

Level 4 Demonstrates mostly relevant and accurate knowledge. 12–14

Level 3 Demonstrates generally accurate and relevant knowledge. 9–11

Level 2 Demonstrates some accurate and relevant knowledge. 5–8

Level 1 Demonstrates limited knowledge. 1–4

Level 0 Demonstrates no relevant historical knowledge. 0

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 Page 4 of 7

9489/32 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme February/March 2024
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

1 The Origins of the First World War 40

Interpretation/Approach

The main interpretation is that the historian blames the war on the fact that the
1914 crisis was different because it was clear that a local war was going to
occur, which short-circuited the normal processes of diplomacy, but that
Germany’s encouragement of Austria was what risked a general European
war. Showing complete understanding of the interpretation will involve
discussion of both these aspects. This is an interpretation that blames
Germany for causing the world war, not because it wanted to cause it, but
because it was willing to take the risk, as everyone knew that war with Serbia
would provoke Russian intervention. It is clear that, without German backing,
Austria would not have gone ahead with war against Serbia. Better responses
might note that whilst the interpretation obviously blames Germany, it does
not offer any explanation of why German policy encouraged Austria to go to
war with Serbia. There is some blame attributed to Austria, but it is portrayed
as being so much in thrall to Germany that its level of blame is secondary.

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.

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 Page 5 of 7

9489/32 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme February/March 2024
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

2 The Holocaust 40

Interpretation/Approach

The main interpretation is that the historian blames Hitler for deciding on (i.e.
not just wanting) the extermination of the Jews from an early stage, and
certainly from before war in 1939, though the evolution of genocidal policy
was held back by practical constraints. Showing complete understanding of
the Interpretation will involve discussion of both these aspects, with deciding
on and (not) doing) both being explained. This historian believes that the
evidence of Hitler’s speeches makes it unbelievable that Hitler decided on
genocide any later than 1939. However, he could not be entirely open about
his intentions because of worries about domestic and foreign public opinion.
The approach taken by the historian is clearly intentionalist and no other label
can be accepted in L5/L6.

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.

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 Page 6 of 7

9489/32 Cambridge International AS & A Level – Mark Scheme February/March 2024
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

3 The Origins and Development of the Cold War 40

Interpretation/Approach

The main interpretation is that the historian blames the Soviet Union for
pursuing an aggressive expansionist policy in the early post-war period, which
forced the West to respond and resist the threat it posed (thus exonerating the
West). Showing complete understanding of the Interpretation will involve
discussion of both these aspects. The language used in the extract is clearly
blaming the Soviets whilst exonerating the West. This is clearly a
traditional/orthodox interpretation, and only this label is acceptable at L6.
Seeing the approach as post-post-revisionist is questionable because of the
uncritical view taken of the West and the lack of focus on Stalin, but can get
max. L5 on blaming the Soviet Union.

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.

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2024 Page 7 of 7