World War Ii and Candidates

12 eP e ap . c rs om FOREWORD This booklet contains reports indite by Examiners on the turn tail of panoramas in certain papers. Its bailiwicks are primarily for the data of the subject teachers concerned. 9697 score June 2005 HISTORY GCE locomote Level and GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level Paper 9697/01 Paper 1 Modern europiuman recital, 1789 1939 frequent comments The general beat of the scripts was satisfactory and any of the Examiners read al around excellent work that was pertinent, webly argued and hearty detained by appropriate know guidege. Most candi meshs make outed four disbeliefs as required and employd their clock effectively. The standard of the answers to interrogation 1, the author-based apparent motion, was better and Examiners welcomed the improvement.Fewer candidates only summa nobbled the spot outence books and more gained assent by comparing and contrasting them and by tasking their intercourse value. They get worded how reli able-b odied-bodied and put onful the passages were. This could be d whizz in several ways, including testing the reliability of what a bug said against ones let know conductge, testing the reliability of what a book of facts said against what a nonher(prenominal) sources indicated, examining the dustup and argument in a source to indicate its bias, and analysing a sources language and argument in congeneric to the ca enjoyments purpose or audience. Sometimes candidates dismissed sources because they were biased.However, wholly sources might be biased in one way or a nonher and the task of historians is to perceive through the bias and extract useful judgements or companionship. When answering the see unbeliefs ( wonders 2 8), weaker candidates were usually futile to will enough cognition to brinytain their expla terra firmas so that their answers t oddityed to be assertions. On the other hand, skinny answers were able to balance arguments or explanations with accurate k nowl edge. This knowledge does non create to be dilate just now candidates must provide hold for their offers. This was particularly apparent in headsprings 3 and 5.In Question 3, in that respect were close to congenial arguments active the general social personal personal correct of the Industrial change but the answers could not be attached luxuriously credit when the look ats were not supported by recitations. This was the fountain wherefore candidates were required to refer to developments in deuce of Britain, France and Germany. In Question 5, many candidates were able to record accurately a variety of reasons for European imperial expansion but the better answers emerged when they illustrated policies by the use of examples. Less satisfactory answers t fetch uped to be dimmed about limited developments.A discriminating factor between good and less creditable answers was that the excogitateer compensable fear to key speech communication or phrases in the dubietys whereas the more moderate responses abouttimes comprised general accounts of topics. The look for questions are accustomed below with the key terminology or phrases in bold. Teachers might decide that it would be a useful exercise to provide their candidates with exemplar essay questions and discuss which are the key words or phrases that need particular attention in answers. Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 How farthermostthermost was Napoleon Bonaparte an oppressive ruler in his internal policies from 1799 to 1815?Discuss the claim that the middle classes gained most from the Industrial Revolution in Europe. apologize the growing support for internalism in Germany and Italy from 1848 to 1871. Why were European g overnments more willing to support imperialist policies in the later state of warfareds old age of the nineteenth cytosine? (You should refer to developments in at least two of Britain, France and Germany in your answer. ) How far ha d Lenin achieved his aims by the time of his death in 1924? How accurate is the claim that the effects of knowledge base War I were the most definitive reason for the rise of totalitarian governments in Europe during the halt to 1939? You should refer to at least two of Germany, Italy and Russia in your answer. ) Examine the claim that Marxism developed to 1914 as the result of industrialisation. Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 2 9697 History June 2005 Comments on circumstantial questions Section A The Origins of World War I, 1870 1914 Question 1 Russias policies ca utilise the outbreak of war in 1914. Use Sources A-D to fancy how far the evidence confirms this averment. This Source-based question on The Origins of World War I asked candidates to use four Sources to consider whether Russias policies ca utilise the outbreak of war in 1914.Candidates were given credit when they sorted the Sources into groups. Sources C and D confirm the claim whilst Source B contradicted it. S ource A was interpreted by most candidates as contradicting the claim but just about candidates mention the strong hint in the last sentence that Russia would stand by Serbia, often interpret this as a blank cheque from Russia that equated with Germanys blank cheque to Austria-Hungary. some candidates sampleed to evaluate the extracts but some answers applied simplistic tests of reliability.For example, they stated that Source A was steady-going because it was a personal telegram from the Tsar to the Kaiser, whilst Sources B, C and D were reliable because they were, in different forms, authorized documents. The most masteryful candidates used the internal evidence of what the sources contained to assess their reliability and value. For example, was Source A condemn to claim that Germany had used all her influence on Austria-Hungary in order to bring about an taking into custody with Russia? Some candidates were given credit when they referred to Germanys blank cheque to d isclaim this claim.There were creditable contrasts between the effects of German long-term planning and Russian mobilisation. The least successful answers sometimes spent in any case a great peck time in summarising, or paraphrasing, the extracts. They lacked a conclusion whereas the outperform answers included a conclusion that provided an boilersuit judgement. Section B Question 2 How far was Napoleon Bonaparte an oppressive ruler in his national policies from 1799 to 1815? The question asked candidates to examine how far Napoleon Bonaparte was an oppressive ruler in his home(prenominal) policies from 1799 to 1815.The overall standard of the answers was sound. The most successful candidates examined a clasp of fill outs but pore on domestic issues because these were specified in the question. Answers could not be given credit for discussions of foreign policy. Some answers devoted too a good deal time to the rise of Napoleon to 1799. This could be used as a brief gatew ay but not as a major story in the argument. Credit was given when candidates considered some of the major policies and reforms introduced by Napoleon, such as the Code Napoleon and the Concordat. They besides referred to the police trunk and censorship.Good answers examined the governmental structure of Napoleons rule it was loftyly centralised and authoritarian. Some moderate and weak answers omitted this real important aspect of the question. Question 3 Discuss the claim that the middle classes gained most from the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The question was based on the claim that the middle classes gained most from the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The standard of the answers was variable. The most frequent reason why answers did not gain a broad(prenominal) simoleons was that they devoted too much time to eneral explanations of the processes of the Industrial Revolution and did not examine sufficiently the effects on social classes. There were some sound answ ers that formulateed the profits that were gained by the middle classes from investment in industries. Increasing wealth allowed them to play a more important political social function. The same reason gave them advantages in society. The question allowed candidates to compare the middle classes with other social groups. Some weak answers only described the hardships of the cast down orders and referred to the middle classes by implication but the better responses included a wide of the marker similarity. 9697 History June 2005 Question 4 Explain the growing support for nationalism in Germany and Italy from 1848 to 1871. The key issue was the growing support for nationalism in Germany and Italy and the specified finale was 1848 to 1871. Examiners read some very effective answers that were uninflected and considered a variety of relevant closures. Some referred to the legacies of the French Revolution and the Vienna Settlement. This was relevant as long as it was not given to o much space. The most successful answers were equilibrize between Germany and Italy whereas some did not merit the highest credit because they were im equilibrise.Some moderate answers wrote narrative accounts of political leaders such as Bismarck and Cavour. This come near was relevant but it sometimes omitted to affair these leaders to nationalism. On the other hand, Examiners read some perceptive answers that argued that, whilst Bismarck and Cavour promoted unification, they were not essentially German or Italian nationalists. There were inte suspireing assessments of the effects of the 1848-1849 revolutions and of the Zollverein in Germany. Question 5 Why were European governments more willing to support imperialist policies in the later on years of the nineteenth century? You should refer to developments in at least two of Britain, France and Germany in your answer. ) A recurring eccentric of the outdo answers was their combination of argument and examples. Many candidat es could explicate a count of relevant factors that encouraged governments to support imperialist policies but their essays sometimes lacked examples so that the answers were too general for a high mark. The most successful answers combined explanations of factors such as political and economic interests with references to regions where these were implemented. Question 6 How far had Lenin achieved his aims by the time of his death in 1924?Examiners were pleased with the quality of most of the answers. Credit was given when candidates explained Lenins aims explicitly these were relieved by some of the more moderate responses. The most successful answers considered both his successes and his failures and came to a considered balance of judgement. Answers in the middle and lower bands sometimes focused exclusively on successes. A hardly a(prenominal)er candidates devoted too much time to the rise of Lenin and Bolshevism to 1917 this was relevant but needed to be linked to the key issue of Lenins achievements by 1924.Among the successes that were explained was that Lenin took the Bolsheviks to power in 1917. He then led the new government to victory against the Whites in the civil war. The war with Germany was ended. He established a one-sided state, defeating opponents, and he was unchallenged personally. On the other hand, assertable failures might make included the fact that Lenins economic measures, especially War Communism, almost led to collapse and had to be revised in the freshly Economic Policy. Survival was achieved at the cost of abandoning loss-communist principles.Terror became widely used. Question 7 How accurate is the claim that the effects of World War I were the most important reason for the rise of totalitarian governments in Europe during the period to 1939? (You should refer to at least two of Germany, Italy and Russia in your answer. ) The question asked candidates to consider whether the effects of World War I were the most import ant reason for the rise of totalitarian governments in Europe. They were required to refer to at least two countries out of Germany, Italy and Russia in their answers.The general quality of the essays was satisfactory and Examiners read some excellent answers. These assessed the impact of the war and compared it with other factors their arguments were supported by appropriate knowledge. Good candidates explained that the war had practiced political and economic effects. For example, it destabilised an authoritarian regime in Russia and the post-war democratic governments in Germany and Italy because neither state was suffice with the outcome of the passage of arms (including Germany and the imposition of the Versailles settlement and Italys disillusionment with erritorial issues). Economic consequences were examined. In Germany and Italy, the war led to the growing appeal of ultra-nationalist groups whilst it confirmed communist leaders, Lenin and then Stalin, in power in Russia because the 1917 Revolution was a direct outcome of World War I, although it was not its only cause. With this basis, sound answers explored other factors in the rise of totalitarian governments, such as the personal appeal of leaders and their use both of propaganda and terror to do obedience. Democratic governments were weak. 4 9697 History June 2005Question 8 Examine the claim that Marxism developed to 1914 as the result of industrialisation. The key issue was the connection between Marxism and industrialisation. Candidates gained credit when they explained that Marx believed that there was such a link he held that capitalistic industrial states suppressed the wage earners or proletariat. The middle class or bourgeoisie were said to use industrialisation to exploit the lower classes. Sound answers explained that Marxism appealed most to those in industrial societies, especially in France and Germany.However, it did have less appeal in highly industrialised Britain. Some noted th at Russia, the snapper of the first Marxist revolution, was not an industrially-based country. Some weak answers were vague about Marxism and provided only general accounts of industrialisation. These did not deserve a high mark because they did not address the key issue in the question. Paper 9697/03 Paper 3 International History, 1945 1991 oecumenic Comments The number of candidates taking this paper was slightly up on last year. The overall standard of the candidates was satisfactory.Most scripts demonstrated a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding. The paper produced answers which covered the entire range of marks with a pleasing number of candidates producing some high quality answers. An example of a high quality answer has been included below under Question 1. The most successful candidates used their knowledge and understanding of the topic to answer specifically the question on the examination paper. Knowledge was used to support and sustain an analytical argu ment which came to a specific conclusion.Many candidates underachieved because they tended to use their knowledge to write narrative and descriptive answers which contained only a limited amount of abridgment. Each question on the examination paper focused on one of the topic areas contained in spite of appearance the syllabus. In Question 1, candidates were asked to assess the system that the UN Secretary-General was the most important factor in ending the Suez Conflict of 1956. The command instruction of how far required candidates to offer an analytical answer for and against the proposition in the question, using source entropy and contextual knowledge to support their answers.The essay questions (Questions 2-8) were all framed in a similar way to enable candidates to engage in analysis. ascendency instructions such as how important, assess and discuss require candidates to produce a balanced analysis in direct response to the question. Given the limited time available in the examination, lengthened contextual sections which set the scene, unfortunately limit the time available for direct coverage of the issue in the question. Although it is useful to plan an answer, candidates should be aware that this exercise should register only a a a hardly a(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) minutes for each answer.Very hardly a(prenominal) candidates failed to attempt four questions. However, although a number of candidates failed to finish their final answer, this was presumptively due to pressure of time. Comments on specific questions Section A The Development of the United Nations, 1945 1991 Question 1 How far do Sources A-E support the view that the work of Hammarskjold was the most important reason why the Suez conflict was brought to an end in November 1956? The question required candidates to study five sources on the UN and the Suez Crisis of 1956.They had to consider the view that the UN Secretary-General, jag Hammarskjold was the most impor tant reason why the Suez Crisis was brought to an end in November 1956. In doing so, candidates should have considered information within each source, cross referenced information between sources and have analysed the attribution of the sources to decide whether or not the hypothesis in the question was correct. 5 9697 History June 2005 The vast legal age of candidates were able to use source information to construct an answer which both supported and challenged the hypothesis in the question.However, although most candidates used information within the sources, fewer were able to cross reference information between sources or evaluate the sources as examples of diachronic evidence on the issue. In providing source devaluation, many candidates did not go beyond referring to specific sources as biased or fairly reliable, without explaining precisely why this assessment was make. For candidates to receive suitable reward for source evaluation, an explanation of why sources might be biased or unreliable is required.Some candidates wrote grand answers to this question which created time problems in answering the essay questions later in the examination. The following is an answer to this question although it did not receive integral marks, it does illustrate a very high standard of answer. The claim that Hammarskjold was the most important reason why the Suez Conflict came to an end is debateable. Source A supports the hypothesis by almost making it seem that UNEF would not have been contingent without him. Hammarskjold found himself acting as much in the diplomatic as in the administrative field. This was because he had to persuade Egypt to be the host country for the UNEF. This source gives one the sense that the Secretary-General was an effective leader in a time of pressure and was willing to take up the challenging role. For instance The Assembly asked the Secretary-General to produce a plan for a UN force within 48 hours. Hammarskjold took up the chall enge and organised the force. This gives the impression that the UN General Assembly would have been helpless without Hammarskjolds involvement. This source has been indite by a British journalist six years after the end of the conflict.Although not a key worker in the conflict the journalist provides credible evidence as to the role of the Secretary-General. Source B excessively supports the hypothesis. It looks more at the diplomatic side of the conflict by stating that Hammarskjoldsucceeded in establishing a basis for co-operation between the UN and Egypt upon which the UNEF operated smoothly. The source only focuses on this fact of how Hammarskjold was able to persuade Nasser. This point is as closely as bring uped in Source A. One has also to note the author of the source. Brian Urquhart was a key player concerning the UN presence in the conflict.As it is explained in source C Urquhart was part of Hammarskjolds estimable staff. Therefore, this source provides more effect ive information because Urquhart was involved in the UN at the time and thereof knew precisely what was happening. The source, in that sense, can be said to be reliable. However, as a member of Hammarskjolds team it may be likely to support the role of the Secretary-General. This source comes from a biography of Hammarskjold and does not offer any critical comments on the Secretary-Generals role in the Suez Conflict. Therefore, source B may not be assoilly reliable as evidence.Source C partly challenges the hypothesis, unlike the first two sources. It points out that the idea (for the UNEF) came from Lester Pearson. Therefore, Hammarskjold cannot be said to be the most important reason for the ending of the Suez Conflict. The author of this source concentrates more on the role of the General Assembly. It states, the Suez crisis was the finest hour of the General Assembly. The author gives credit to Hammarskjold and his admirable staff. One can see that Hammarskjold is not prais ed as he is in Source A and furthermore, this view can be seen in Source D which also partial(p)ly challenges the hypothesis.The General Assembly gets more attention when the Security Council would not do anything following the veto by Britain and France. Hammarskjold is shown in a different light compared to sources A and B. Hammarskjold is said to have had serious doubts at first about Pearsons idea. In sources A and B Hammarskjold seems to have jumped at the challenge without having second public opinions. On the other hand, one should take note that the source was compose in 1995 and would have had a better overview of what happened. This would explain the playing down of Hammarskjolds role.Source C is written by a diplomat and source D is written by a journalist neither of which were key players in the conflict. The sources are both from books which attempt to place the Suez Conflict in wider international context. The sources cannot be said to be wholly reliable but they do offer an objective view. Source E partially supports the hypothesis. Yet, like sources C and D states that there were different key people. The source states the key person, in addition to Hammarskjold himself, was Lester Pearson. Lester Person is actually labelled as a key erson rather than just be mentioned as the person who came up with the idea of the UNEF. save this source does not play down Hammarskjolds role and also mentions that he quickly provided a preliminary plan about the crisis. This is similar to source A. 6 9697 History June 2005 In conclusion, source A and B fully support the hypothesis while source partially supports it. Sources C and D partially challenge the hypothesis. Sources C, D and E all have the advantage of having a better overview of the Suez Crisis, being written some time after the event.However, these sources are not written by key players and they cannot be considered wholly reliable. Source A is not written by a key player but was written soon af ter the event. Source B, on the other hand, is written by a key player but cannot be said to be wholly reliable because one would not expect a person to openly criticise his own organisation. The hypothesis claims that the Suez conflict was brought to an end because of Hammarskjolds work. Yet, most of the sources have pointed out that other key players, the General Assembly, Pearson and Nasser, also helped to end the conflict.I would suggest that the hypothesis should be circumscribed to How far do sources A-E support the view that the work of Hammarskjold, in carrying out the idea of Lester Pearson, was an important reason why the Suez conflict was brought to an end in November 1956? Section B Question 2 Which of the following has the best claim to mark the start of the frigidity War Churchills Iron Curtain speech, 1946 the Truman Doctrine, 1947 the Berlin Blockade, 1948-1949? Explain your answer. This was by far the most best-selling(predicate) of the optional essay questions. However, some candidates did not differentiate effectively between the cause(s) and start of the Cold War. In many of these answers a significant amount of time was used to provide detailed contextual material going back to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The vast majority of candidates displayed a detailed knowledge of the1945 to 1949 period of the Cold War in Europe. The best answers were able to use this information to answer the question directly. Those candidates who achieved high marks were able to explain directly which of the three developments had the best claim to starting the Cold War.Knowledge was then deployed to support and sustain the case do. A number of candidates took the view that none of the three calamitys forced the start of the Cold War. The best of these answers were able to explain which of the three developments did not constitute the start of the Cold War as well as pointing out why another incident deserved the title. The Soviet takeover of eastern E urope, 1945-48 and the Marshall Plan were offered as alternatives to the three developments offered in the question. Question 3 Who or what was responsible for the globalisation of the Cold War?This was also a very hot question. Many of the better answers were able to give a definition of the term globalisation. They also made specific reference to the two command instructions in the question, why and what. Most of the candidates were able to mention the Korean War as a possible starting point in the globalisation of the Cold War. Other events such as the Vietnam War, Cuba and the Arab-Israeli conflict were mentioned. Some candidates mentioned the collapse of the European overseas empires in the mid-fifties and 1960s which resulted in the involvement of the two superpowers.In determining responsibility, the vast majority of candidates chose either the regular army or the USSR or both as the prime culprits in globalising the Cold War. However, a small number of candidates also laid blame on the ambitions of the Peoples Republic of China. Question 4 Assess the congenator contribution of the States and the Soviet Union to the outcome of the war in Vietnam? This was not a popular question. A clear majority of candidates chose Question 3 over Question 4. Many answers adopted a narrative-chronological or narrative description of the Vietnam War.Very few candidates were able to assess the relative contribution of either the regular army or the USSR. In many cases, the US contribution was seen in providing troops and leading the conduct of the war from 1965 to 1972. The Soviet contribution was seen in terms of providing military equipment to North Vietnam. Very few candidates were able to link the term relative contribution to the outcome of the Vietnam War. As a result, diplomatic aspects of the contribution of both the ground forces and USSR were ignored. 7 9697 History June 2005 Question 5 How important was the westerly in the collapse of the USSR in 1991?Thi s proven to be a very popular question. It was clear that the majority of the candidates had a clear understanding of why the USSR collapsed in 1991. Those candidates who underachieved tended to ignore the role of the West and instead, backbreaking on the internal factors which resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Most of this type of response mentioned Gorbachevs assay reforms (Glasnost and Perestroika) and their subsequent failure. Fewer candidates referred to the impact of nationalism (The Baltic States and the Caucasus region) on the weakening of the USSR.Only a small number of candidates referred to the events of August 1991 which led directly to the USSRs collapse. Unfortunately, those candidates who displayed detailed knowledge of internal factors without mentioning the importance of the West, did not score highly. Of those candidates who referred directly to the role of the West, the vast majority referred to the role of the USA. The Second Cold War was regarded a s a major destabilising factor for the USSR. The cost of matching the USA in both conventional and nuclear armaments was cited as an important cause of the Soviet Unions collapse.A small number of candidates mentioned the broader role of the West. The disparity of lifestyles and wealth which were picked up via TV and radio in East Germany or by radio across the Soviet Bloc were given as examples of this phenomenon. Question 6 How successful were attempts to tone down the nuclear arms race between the superpowers in the period 1960 to 1980? Examiners noted that the majority of answers to this question adopted a narrative and narrative-chronological approach, with only very limited analysis of the issue of success, which was mentioned in the question.The vast majority of answers referred to the Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 and the two flavor treaties of the 1970s. Unfortunately, a significant minority of candidates did not limit their coverage to the period ending in 1980. As a result, considerable time was spent describing and explaining the role of START, SDI (The Strategic Defence Initiative or magician Wars) and the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty. Considerable detailed knowledge was displayed on the treaties of the 1960s and 1970s mentioned above.However, this knowledge was not eternally used to its full effect. In many cases knowledge was deployed to describe events and the terms of treaties, rather than used to explain the degree to which attempts were successful. Question 7 By the 1980s, the American dominance of the international parsimony had almost disappeared. Discuss. Examiners noted that this was not a popular question. Many responses showed only a limited knowledge of the international economy between 1945 and the 1980s. Many candidates accepted the assertion in the question at face value.They mentioned the rise of West Germany and Japan as potential economic rivals to the USA in the international eco nomy by the 1970s. They also mentioned the rise of the Asian Tiger economies in a similar vein. Some candidates mentioned the collapse of the Bretton Woods system by 1972, with the abandonment of the Fixed Exchange Rate system. However, only a few candidates offered a balanced approach which mentioned that although the USAs overwhelmingly dominant position in the international economy after the Second World War had been eroded, it had not disappeared.US dominance in I. T. related industries as shown by the NASDAQ world power of companies (e. g. Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Apple etc. ), and its dominant role at the WTO and with the World Bank, were cited as examples of continued dominance. 8 9697 History June 2005 Question 8 Why did Africa run into serious problems of famine in the 1980s? Although not a popular question it, nevertheless, produced some very good quality answers. It was clear that some Centres had taught this topic exceedingly well.Candidates were able to mention so cial, climatic, political and economic factors which resulted in large areas of Africa experiencing famine in the 1980s. The best answers gave specific examples of the areas of famine. The most regularly mentioned were Ethiopia and Somalia. However, in several cases candidates interpreted the question somewhat differently. Many candidates displayed sound knowledge of Africa in the 1980s but used this knowledge to explain why Africa was relatively poor compared to the rest of the world, rather than the specific issue of famine.Paper 9697/05 Paper 5 History of USA c. 1840 1968 General comments There was a considerable increase in the number of candidates compared with June 2004. The overall standard was sound, but certain common weaknesses were evident, resulting in lower outcomes. The most common was failing to answer four questions, or alternatively only offering a few lines as answers. There were also a number of completely irrelevant answers which scored bent 7 (0-7 marks).How ever, the best scripts were a pleasure to read, being consistently relevant, well structured, analytical or explanatory, with good supporting evidence appropriately used. These scored Bands 1 and 2 (18-25 marks). One script even attained the exceptionally high mark of 96. The compulsory source based question, Question 1, was answered indifferently. To alone repeat and recycle the words of the sources with a few general remarks at the beginning and/or end of the response could at best only result in Level 3 (10-14 marks), and this is what most candidates did.To achieve the higher bands it was essential to use the sources as evidence, i. e. to interpret and evaluate them in their historical context. The most common failings in the essay questions (2-8) were over reliance on narrative and descriptive responses and a reluctance to engage in relevant analysis of the problems posed in the questions, backed up by good evidence in a crystal clear structure. Comments on specific questions Section A The Road to Secession and Civil War, 1846-61 Question 1 It was the complete breakdown in trust between North and second that made compromise impossible. Using Sources A E, discuss how far the evidence supports this assertion. Only a minority of candidates evaluated the sources as evidence in their historical context, but those who did scored higher marks in Levels 5-6 (19-25 marks). A common failing was to put the case for or against the public debate, whereas it is important to show the evidence for and against it and then to come to a conclusion as to which, in the candidates view, is better or more reliable.Few candidates noted that the sources came into three groups, A being two years before capital of Nebraskas election in November 1860, B and C being an immediate response to his victory and D and E, after the secession of the lower south had occurred. Few candidates pointed out that Douglas was a presidential candidate in 1860 and only some explained what his doc trine of Popular Sovereignty involved and how it had proved impossible in Kansas. Most candidates saw the significance of Stephens being later Vice President of the Confederacy, but few gave evidence of his strong pro-Union views until his home state of Georgia seceded.The best approach was for candidates to give the evidence for the tilt this would be Sources B, D and E in their historical context and then to give the evidence against the contention this would be Sources A and C in their historical context. Finally, the candidate should state his or her conclusion, or at the highest level, why sources point to a different hypothesis to that stated in the question, or alternatively, why the hypothesis should be modified in the light of the evidence. 9 9697 History June 2005 Section B Question 2 Mexico will poison us. United States? How accurate was this prediction of the effects of the Mexican War on the This was a very popular question with the great majority of candidates answer ing it. A significant number simply ignored Whitmans quotation and gave a descriptive account of the origins and course of the war. The majority of candidates went beyond this to point out that as a consequence of the huge annexation of territory the slavery question flared up violently with sectional tensions getting steadily worse and leading to secession and civil war.The best responses went beyond this to point out that the ultimate result was not only a transcontinental nation from Pacific to Atlantic but that the Union victory led to the elimination of the Southern veto in the Senate and that America became the most aggressively capitalist and individualist nation in the world. It could be argued that the modern American nation took shape as a result of the territorial annexations from Mexico. Question 3 I claim not to have controlled events but confess plainly that events have controlled me. (Abraham capital of Nebraska, speech in 1864). Do you agree with Lincolns assessmen t of his Presidency?A very popular question but few sincerely good responses most candidates played it safe by giving a descriptive account of Lincolns Presidency, in some cases going back long before he became President. The point of the question was not that Lincoln simply reacted to events but that many of the key events facing him were beyond his control. Obvious examples would be the acute sectional crisis of the 1850s, the whole slavery issue and the decision of the Lower South to secede and form the C. S. A. Relatively few pointed out that Lincoln was decisive and active when needed.Good examples would be his skill in retentivity Kentucky and Maryland from seceding, the Emancipation Proclamation, his flat refusal to negotiate terms with the Confederacy when this appeared to be the only way to end the war, as in the early half of 1864. He also assumed to himself almost dictatorial powers in suspending, in effect, the Bill of Rights, introducing censorship and suspending Habe as Corpus. He also appointed and retained Grant amid much reproval and towards the end of his Presidency had a Reconstruction programme which, if implemented, might have reconciled the defeated South.Question 4 Explain why the United States became the worlds leading industrial nation in the period 1865-1900. A minority choice but reasonably well answered. The role of technological inventions was well handled and tight all candidates discussed the endless egress of barefaced and motivated parturiency by immigration. Relatively few mentioned cheap land or the fact that the US had a political and legal framework in this period which was extremely favourable to business and hostile to any degree of government in economic matters, with the partial exception of the railroads.There was an almost total lack of data for example, that by 1900 the US produced 30% of the worlds industrial goods. 10 9697 History June 2005 Question 5 How was it possible, in spite of constitutional protectio n, for the Southern States to deny basic civil rights to African-Americans from 1895 to 1964? A very popular question, though not very well handled, with niggling discussion of the roles of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in granting full civil rights. In theory the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments had granted full legal and civic equality to the Freedmen.The basic problem, which few candidates mentioned, was that the whites had lost interest in the fate of the African-Americans the last mentioned were a small minority in the nation and even in the former slave states they were a majority in only two states in 1900. As a result, the southern states were able by a variety of means, which were quite well described, to circumvent the plain intention of the Amendments by reducing blacks to the precondition of permanently second class citizens, denied the right to vote and access to the same level of education as the white majority.Most candidates mentioned the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v Ferguson. The role of the Ku Klux Klan in the twenties was probably overstated and few mentioned FDRs juggling act in keeping the Solid South as part of his victorious coalition, while successfully wooing Northern blacks into voting for him. Most Presidents in this period were indifferent to black aspirations. Candidates correctly dwelt on Martin Luther Kings inspiring and intelligent leadership in the civil disobedience campaign from the 1950s onwards.Few mentioned his building up of alliances with Democratic politicians in the North, in particular Kennedy. The effect of the Brown case was dealt with well and better responses highlighted the effect of the Cold War on putting pressure on the American political establishment to grant civil rights. None pointed to the jeering of the Texan career politician Lyndon Johnson pushing through the major civil rights legislation when his more high minded predecessors had been unable, or unwilling, to do so. Question 6 How different were the policies adopted by Hoover and Roosevelt to deal with the Great Depression?A popular question but candidates paid little attention to Hoover. opposed Roosevelt, Hoover believed firmly that it was quite wrong for the Federal Government to engage in the regulation of, and impediment in, the economy. No one mentioned that Hoover tried very hard to commit FDR to a continuation of his own policies even up to the day before FDRs Inauguration in March 1933. Hoover was, of course, regarded as one of the great humanitarians of the twentieth century for his outstanding work in famine relief in Russia in 1919 and 1920 and it is quite wrong to portray him as indifferent to suffering.His policies were, however, ineffective and from 1929 to 1933 unemployment, business failures and falling storehouse market prices grew steadily worse until it seemed that the whole pecuniary system of the US was on the very edge of total collapse. While candidates were c orrect to portray FDR as both different from and more effective than Hoover, few made much sense of the famous New Deal. It was not a coherent, logical programme and at times it was not easy to see precisely what FDR was trying to do this was not helped by his tenacious deviousness.However, he managed to infuse all around him with his unfailing cheerfulness and optimism (in contrast to Hoover) and he was clearly an activistic ready to try any policy, however unorthodox, to beat the slump. As a result the popular predilection shifted and disaster was averted. Some candidates correctly pointed out that unemployment figures were still very high up to 1939. Question 7 Gradually and rather indisposedly, the United States became an imperial power and a military presence on a global outmatch. Is this a fair assessment of American foreign policy, 1890-1919?This question required skill in organisation as it covered two wars, but most candidates relied on a descriptive, rather than an a nalytical answer, and as a result the treatment of the 1914 to 1919 period was frequently hurried with, too often, the Versailles Peace host being ignored. Few were prepared to tackle the assertion contained in the question. The war with Spain was brutal and pitiless, resulting in de facto control of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and in effect Cuba. There was certainly nothing accidental or hesitant about it. It did make the US a global, and in effect, imperial power.No candidate mentioned Theodore Roosevelts successful mediation in the Russo-Japanese war which resulted ironically in the Nobel Peace prize being awarded to one of the most aggressive and warlike US Presidents. Many candidates discussed Roosevelts acquisition of the Panama Canal and the creation of both the US Canal Zone, with milkweed butterfly powers, and the creation of the state of Panama being hived off from Columbia. The first World War was handled better, with most candidates being correct in describing Presid ent Wilsons determination to stay out of conflict.It is arguable that the US was belatedly dragged into conflict once Russia had withdrawn in 1917, leading to the strong likelihood of German victory which financial considerations, among other factors, made unacceptable to the US. No candidate mentioned the famous Zimmerman telegram and its effect on US public opinion. In 1918 and 1919 Wilson seemed to develop illusions of grandeur in attempting to force his own internationalist ideals on reluctant Allies. 11 9697 History June 2005 Question 8 How far was increasing national prosperity from 1945 to 1968 shared by all Americans?Very few candidates answered this question and none did particularly well. The main focus of responses was on the exceptions to the national prosperity, usually African-Americans, but the other pockets of poverty such as the rural poor, declining mining areas and Hispanic migrant workers, were usually ignored. One would have preferred to have seen much more di scussion on why and how Americans became so prosperous in the post war period. Alone among major powers, it gained enormously in wealth from the war and dominated the world economic scene during the whole period.The US was a major benefactive role of the long economic boom from post war reconstruction and the huge armaments fabrication benefited greatly from the Korean War and the Cold War with the Soviet Union. These factors were ignored. Paper 9697/06 Paper 6 Caribbean History, 1794 1900 General comments In the main candidates attempted the required four questions, although there were a few who obviously spent too much time on Question 1 and either could not finish a fourth question or, in some cases, had failed to tackle a fourth question.As far as possible, candidates should give equal shares of the time available to each question as a truncated or missing final answer will affect the examination result. Among the ways of avoiding the most serious consequences of failing to complete four full answers would be to plan responses to the questions so that, if need be, a firm outline of an answer could be given when time is running out, rather than writing two or three paragraphs which only represent a fraction of the material a candidate may have available.Question 1 was always answered. Many candidates were able to consider critically the material in the sources and the reasons why they were written. Some answers only made use of the sources for their content and at face value. A number of candidates did not write a conclusion to their response and so failed to link what they had written to the statement in the hypothesis. Of the other questions, Question 4 was the most commonly answered followed by Questions 3, 2, 6 and 5 in the order of frequency.Though many candidates did use examples for their answers from across the whole Caribbean area, some answers were written in very general terms and, often, with the experience of the British Caribbean (or Jamai ca only) in mind. Question 4 was an example of this, but answers to other questions sometimes had a similar appearance. In Question 2, abolition in the British colonies often took up more than half of an answer which should have given prominence to French and Spanish experiences too. Detailed comments on the answers to all the questions follow later in the report.There were some examples of candidates embarking upon answering questions without sufficient thought or planning. Examples included Question 2, in which there were long accounts of how the slave trade in the British Empire was ended, which might have provided a single point about abolition but where a page and a half of detail represented a wasted opportunity to deal with the question more directly. Candidates probably needed to take some time to collect their ideas about Question 5 and to plan to cover both societies and economies. In general, scripts were well presented, though some candidates handwriting was difficult to read.A few candidates failed to arrange their scripts in proper page order and some did not number their questions. 12 9697 History June 2005 Comments on specific questions Section A Emancipation and its Consequences Question 1 As the nineteenth century progressed, it became clear that there was no future for the Caribbean sugar industry. How far does the evidence of Sources A-E support this statement? The Level description for candidates to receive at least two-thirds of marks is that a candidate by interpreting/evaluating sources in context finds evidence to challenge and support the hypothesis. Evidence is a key word.Candidates should use all the sources, use them as more than a source of information and relate them to the hypothesis in order to gain a high mark. Responses to this question varied widely. Many considered at least some of the sources critically. Some answers were unnecessarily long. Sources A and B described the introduction of machinery to the processing of the c ane and gave a brilliant impression of the future of parts of the sugar industry in the early 1850s. Candidates raised questions about the possible attitude of the Governor of British Guiana in Source A and possible journalistic and pro-planter bias in Source B.Other points about the wide time scale of the sources and their limited geographical scope were made in order to assess the sources. Many missed the chance to use Source D (about the problems of the sugar industry in the British Caribbean, 1876-77) and Source E (on Cuban sugar production in the 1890s) to compare the patently dire situation in one part of the area at one time (Source D), with a more buoyant one a little later (Source E). In Cuba, sugar production retrieve rapidly after the disasters of war, presumably because of the underlying strengths of the industry there.In addition, both could be related to the hypothesis and used to suggest that the situation of sugar production was not hopeless in every area and also to question whether Source D really indicated that there was no future for British West Indian sugar. Both Sources C and E were occasionally misunderstood when candidates did not read the extracts through to the end. Many candidates seemed to assume that each of the sources would be directly for or against the hypothesis where, in fact, it could be suggested that none is as clear cut as that.Section B Question 2 Discuss the factors which account for the abolition of slavery in British, French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. A strong point about many answers was that a number of factors, humanitarian activity, resistance of the enslaved, political and economic circumstances, were outlined in the introduction. These themes were then continued through the essays with comparisons of all three sets of experiences together or sometimes with British and French situations compared, followed by a section on Spain. The dominant element was often material about British colonies.Individ ual factors sometimes were sketched in and there were examples where description replaced the discussion and weighting of the various factors. Treatment of economic and political factors was often slight in comparison with humanitarian activities and slave resistance. Dealing with France, only Victor Schoelchers influence tended to attract much attention and some candidates wrote little about Spain. Less successful answers took each countrys experiences separately and sometimes went back into the eighteenth century anti-slave trade movement in Britain in great detail.This led to over long essays which failed to deal adequately with the question. Question 3 Compare apprenticeship in the British Caribbean with the patronato in Cuba and assess their respective results. The comparison element in this question was usually well done and many candidates were well informed on the Spanish experience. Normally there was a reasonable attempt to compare the two schemes in terms of planter contr ol, punishments, wages, manumission and judicial supervision. The premature ending of each was explained and many candidates judged the Spanish experience to be more humane and more successful than the British.There was a minority of candidates who gave great detail on the independence legislation but did not look at the working of the systems in much detail. 13 9697 History June 2005 Question 4 Assess the reasons why freed people left the estates where they had been slaves. This was the most widely attempted question in Section B. There was a tendency for candidates to present a series of possible explanations without any assessment or illustration to show the complexity of the situation or the time scale involved.In general, answers were restricted to the British Caribbean and mostly attempted to cover the push and pull factors. The most successful answers reflected an ken of the debate among historians about the reasons why freed people left the estates, emphasising opportuniti es which freed people saw and exploited. Only a few answers dealt only with the rejection of plantation life and the consequent flight from the plantations. Some candidates used the development of the peasantry to 1860 as an illustration.Others made good use of the theme that emancipation widened the expectations of freed people. Question 5 To what extent were societies and economies of Caribbean colonies affected by emancipation up to 1900? Explain your answer. Many answers concentrated on economic change and did not reach the date 1900. Some largely reproduced material which was appropriate to Question 4. More effectively, a large number of answers concentrated on the creation of the peasantry and its social and economic results, including the impact on plantation force and the knock on effect of immigration schemes.Some candidates wrote about the diversification of crops and the export trade, using Jamaica as an example. Also mentioned were issues about the quality of life (fami ly and education) and social development (village communities and financial cooperatives). Developments in education and health care were mentioned in some essays. There were some sound and well organised answers. Question 6 How far was there a labour crisis in the Caribbean sugar industry in the second half of the nineteenth century? This was a good question for those who were prepared to plan the answer on the extent of the crisis.Very few candidates did this. Most candidates discussed labour problems in general and the introduction of immigrant labour. Reference to a labour crisis was either non-existent or very brief, peradventure a statement that from the landowners point of view, there was no longer an adequate or dependable labour force or, with reference to Trinidad and British Guiana, that even in the slave period there was an insufficient supply of labour. Because of the tendency to deal with the labour issue rather than the labour crisis, most answers lacked emphasis in relation to the question.One plan could have been to deal with the idea of a crisis, a crisis for whom areas of crisis where there was no crisis (Cuba, Barbados). Question 7 How significant was discrimination based on gender in Caribbean societies after emancipation? Explain your answer. Answers tended to centre on examples of male dominance, though in any one answer few were mentioned. The main point made in relation to the How significant element in the question was that gender discrimination was one among a number of forms of discrimination in Caribbean societies.Most answers were short and limited in scope. Question 8 Explain how Haiti achieved and consolidated its independence. This question was based on the final section (VII) of the syllabus. Unfortunately, most candidates who attempted to answer it used material which was appropriate to the first two content sections. In consequence, few of the answers covered independence or the period which followed. Many answers dealt only with Toussaint, or even with earlier