2024 Cambridge IAL History (9489) Practice Paper with Answers

### Analysis of Similarities
- **Focus on Key Sanctions**: Both sources identify the same potential sanction options—namely, imposing an oil embargo ('to cut off oil' in Source A; 'an oil embargo' in Source B) and closing the Suez Canal ('close the Suez Canal' in both).
- **Recognition of the Policy's Scale**: Both sources acknowledge that the actual sanctions implemented or proposed by the League are limited and cautious rather than absolute ('measured and deliberate' in Source A; 'half-hearted economic restrictions' in Source B).
- **Existential Stakes**: Both sources agree that the crisis is a crucial test of the League's mechanisms, acknowledging that the outcome will shape the international order and the future viability of the League.

### Analysis of Differences
- **Efficacy and Desirability of Limited Sanctions**: Source A supports a limited, cautious approach to sanctions because it believes maintaining peace and avoiding a wider war is the primary goal. Source B, however, strongly rejects limited sanctions, calling them 'worse than total inaction' because they provide a false sense of security while letting the aggressor succeed.
- **View on Stronger Sanctions (Oil & Suez)**: Source A argues that cutting off oil or closing the canal would be an 'act of war' that the fragile League cannot withstand. Source B views the refusal to adopt these exact measures as a betrayal, driven by the 'selfish diplomatic alignments' of the Great Powers.
- **Primary Objectives**: Source A's priority is to 'maintain the peace of Europe' and pursue 'conciliation' through diplomacy. Source B's priority is the absolute enforcement of the Covenant to defend weak member states and prevent a return to 'the law of the jungle.'

### Contextual Evaluation and Explanation of Differences
- **Source A (British perspective, November 1935)**: This speech reflects the official British policy of appeasement and caution. Britain was deeply concerned about its own military readiness and feared that pushing Italy too hard would spark a Mediterranean war or push Mussolini into an alliance with Adolf Hitler (a fear that led to the secret Hoare-Laval Pact negotiations around this time). Thus, Source A rationalizes limited action as a responsible defense of European peace.
- **Source B (Smaller state perspective, December 1935)**: Smaller member states of the League of Nations lacked the military might of Great Powers and depended entirely on the system of collective security for their national survival. To them, the failure of the League to protect Abyssinia from Italian aggression signaled that the League would not protect them if they were targeted by a major power. Consequently, Source B exposes the hypocrisy of the Great Powers who prioritized national interests over League covenants.

**Level 4 (12–15 marks)**: Identifies similarities and differences, and evaluates the sources using contextual knowledge and/or provenance to explain the differences in perspective.
- Evaluates how the national interests of a Great Power (Britain, fearing war with Italy and seeking to maintain the European balance of power) contrast with the survival anxieties of a smaller nation (relying strictly on the covenant of collective security).

**Level 3 (8–11 marks)**: Identifies both similarities and differences between the two sources.
- *Similarities*: Both discuss the same specific measures (oil embargo, Suez Canal) and agree that the current sanctions are limited/moderate.
- *Differences*: Source A supports moderate sanctions to prevent war; Source B criticizes them as weak and a betrayal of the Covenant.

**Level 2 (4–7 marks)**: Identifies either similarities OR differences. (Max 6 marks if only one side is done, or if points are listed without structured comparison).

**Level 1 (1–3 marks)**: Explains or describes the sources but offers no valid comparative points.

Analysis of the Sources: - Source A strongly supports the hypothesis. As a conservative critic, Herbert Hoover argues that the New Deal is a 'systematic attempt' to replace American liberty with 'state-controlled regimentation,' viewing the expansion of federal power as an unconstitutional assault on individual enterprise and constitutional rights. - Source B challenges the hypothesis. FDR redefines the concept of 'liberty' from negative liberty (freedom from government) to positive liberty (freedom from economic exploitation and insecurity), arguing that his programs defend and enhance the true freedom of the average American. - Source C strongly supports the hypothesis. This unanimous Supreme Court ruling declares the NIRA unconstitutional, explicitly stating that the federal government overreached its powers and violated the constitutional separation of powers by delegating legislative authority to the executive branch. - Source D challenges the hypothesis. The progressive author argues that far from destroying democracy, the New Deal saved it from the threats of fascism and communism by proactively resolving economic distress, demonstrating that democracy could adapt to manage the economy without sacrificing liberty. Evaluating and Contextualizing the Sources: - Source A is written by Hoover, a Republican who was soundly defeated by Roosevelt in 1932. His perspective is highly partisan and shaped by his own ideological commitment to rugged individualism. While his warning about the 'shadow of a paternalistic government' represents a common conservative viewpoint, his claims of systemic 'regimentation' exaggerate the degree of central planning under the New Deal. - Source B is a public address by Roosevelt aimed at defending his policies during a critical mid-term election year. Its purpose is persuasive and political, framing federal intervention as a defense of common liberty. While it reflects the administration's genuine ideological shift, its rhetoric downplays the valid concerns regarding federal overreach. - Source C carries immense constitutional authority. As a unanimous (9-0) decision by the Supreme Court, it is a highly reliable legal assessment. The ruling demonstrates that, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, key aspects of the early New Deal (like the NIRA) did indeed violate the established legal limits of federal and executive power. - Source D represents a progressive intellectual viewpoint from 1936, a presidential election year. Its assessment is partisan in favor of FDR, but its context is highly valuable; the 1930s witnessed the collapse of democracy in Europe, making the argument that the New Deal served as a stabilizing force for American democratic capitalism highly plausible. Conclusion: In conclusion, the sources offer a balanced debate. Sources A and C provide powerful evidence that the New Deal was a threat to the traditional US Constitution and individual economic liberty, showing that even the Supreme Court agreed that the administration had unconstitutionally expanded executive power. However, Sources B and D offer a compelling counter-argument, showing that the crisis of the Great Depression required a broader interpretation of liberty and constitutional flexibility to preserve the democratic system from collapse, ultimately suggesting that the New Deal saved American democracy rather than destroyed it.

Marking Scheme (Total: 25 Marks): - Level 5 (21–25 marks): Answers show a highly developed understanding of the running debate across all four sources. Candidates evaluate the sources comprehensively, using historical context and origin/purpose to assess their reliability and utility. A clear, balanced, and persuasive conclusion is reached on the extent to which the sources support the hypothesis. - Level 4 (16–20 marks): Answers are well-focused on the question and make a balanced, two-sided argument using all four sources. There is some evaluation of the sources (e.g., considering Hoover's political bias, the Supreme Court's constitutional role, or FDR's rhetorical purpose), though it may not be fully integrated or sustained across all documents. - Level 3 (11–15 marks): Answers identify both supporting and challenging evidence from the sources but may treat them at face value without significant evaluation. Alternatively, they may evaluate some sources but fail to provide a balanced argument covering both sides of the hypothesis. - Level 2 (6–10 marks): Answers tend to focus on one side of the argument or fail to use all sources. They may rely on general historical knowledge rather than direct source analysis, or describe the sources without directly linking them to the hypothesis. - Level 1 (1–5 marks): Answers offer a very limited response, perhaps summarizing some source content or writing generally about the New Deal without addressing the specific question.

The decision of the Provisional Government to continue Russia’s involvement in the First World War after the February Revolution of 1917 was driven by several key factors:

* **Allied Obligations and Financial Reliance:** The Provisional Government felt bound by treaties signed by the Tsarist regime with the Allied powers (Britain and France). Russia was heavily dependent on foreign loans, war credits, and military supplies from these allies. Backing out of the war would have led to immediate financial isolation, bankruptcy, and the loss of international legitimacy for the fledgling government.
* **National Honor and Territorial Integrity:** A separate peace with Germany in early 1917 would have forced Russia to accept humiliating terms, including major territorial concessions in Poland, the Baltic states, and parts of Ukraine. The moderate liberals (such as the Kadets) who dominated the early government believed that capitulating to Germany would be a betrayal of Russian national honor.
* **Revolutionary Defendism:** Many leaders, including Alexander Kerensky (who became Minister of War), championed the concept of "revolutionary defendism." They argued that with the Tsar gone, Russia was now a free democracy. Therefore, the war was no longer an imperialist conflict but a patriotic struggle to defend the achievements of the revolution against autocratic German militarism.
* **Domestic Legitimacy and the June Offensive:** It was believed that a successful, well-organized military campaign (which culminated in the June/July Offensive) would boost national morale, unite a fractured society, restore discipline to a mutinous army, and firmly establish the authority of the Provisional Government against the radical challenge of the Petrograd Soviet.

**Level 4 (8-10 marks):** Identifies and explains multiple, distinct reasons for the Provisional Government's decision to continue the war. Shows deep understanding of both external pressures (Allies, financial aid) and internal dynamics (revolutionary defendism, honor, legitimacy).

**Level 3 (5-7 marks):** Identifies and begins to explain reasons, but may focus heavily on one factor (such as alliance obligations) while describing others briefly. The connection between the causes and the decision is mostly clear but uneven.

**Level 2 (3-4 marks):** Identifies relevant factors (e.g., they had treaties with France; they wanted to beat Germany) but lacks detailed explanation, presenting them as simple assertions or narrative description.

**Level 1 (1-2 marks):** Offers brief, generalized, or inaccurate comments about the Russian Revolution or the war with little direct relevance to the question.

**Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditworthy response.

The Supreme Court's ruling in *Dred Scott v. Sandford* (1857) acted as a major catalyst for the outbreak of the Civil War by inflaming passions on both sides of the sectional divide:

* **Denial of Black Citizenship:** Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. This deeply outraged Northern abolitionists, free Black communities, and moderate Northerners who saw it as a profound moral setback and a denial of basic human rights.
* **Declaration of the Missouri Compromise as Unconstitutional:** The Court ruled that Congress had no constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in any federal territory. This effectively legalized slavery nationwide in all territories, nullifying decades of hard-fought political compromises (such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820) designed to keep a balance between free and slave states.
* **Fueling the "Slave Power" Conspiracy:** For many Northerners, the decision confirmed their worst fears of a "Slave Power" conspiracy. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices were Southern Democrats, leading Northerners to believe that the South had captured not just the Presidency and Congress, but the judiciary as well, in order to force slavery upon the entire nation.
* **Threat to the Republican Party:** The core platform of the newly formed Republican Party was the non-extension of slavery into the territories. By ruling that Congress could not ban slavery there, the Supreme Court struck at the very political legitimacy of the Republican Party, forcing them to attack the ruling and further alienating the South, which viewed any opposition to the Court's decision as treasonous.

**Level 4 (8-10 marks):** Explains multiple reasons why the decision increased tensions, linking legal rulings (citizenship, territorial status of slavery) directly to political consequences (the Slave Power conspiracy, threat to the Republican Party).

**Level 3 (5-7 marks):** Identifies and begins to explain reasons, but the response may be uneven, focusing heavily on the details of the Dred Scott case itself rather than fully analyzing the specific impacts on sectional tensions.

**Level 2 (3-4 marks):** Identifies basic reasons (e.g., it said slaves were property; it made Northerners angry) but lacks analytical depth, relying on a narrative of the court case.

**Level 1 (1-2 marks):** General assertions about slavery and the Civil War with little to no direct reference to the specific impacts of the Dred Scott decision.

**Level 0 (0 marks):** No creditworthy response.

To answer this question, candidates should analyze the successes and failures of the French Directory between 1795 and 1799 in both political and economic spheres.

**Arguments that the Directory succeeded in restoring stability:**
- **Political Moderation:** It ended the Reign of Terror and the radicalism of the Jacobins, establishing a more moderate, middle-class republic governed by the Constitution of Year III (1795).
- **Suppression of Extremism:** It successfully defended the Republic against threats from both royalists (e.g., the Vendémiaire uprising of 1795) and radical leftists (e.g., Gracchus Babeuf’s Conspiracy of the Equals in 1796).
- **Economic and Financial Reforms:** Ramel-Nogaret (Finance Minister) reformed the tax system and introduced the silver-based franc to replace the worthless assignats, which laid the financial foundations for later Napoleonic stability.
- **Foreign Policy Success:** French armies, particularly under Napoleon Bonaparte in Italy, defeated Austria (Treaty of Campo Formio, 1797), securing borders and bringing wealth into the state treasury.

**Arguments that the Directory failed to restore stability:**
- **Political Instability and Coups:** The Directory lacked democratic legitimacy, frequently annulled elections when results did not suit them (e.g., Coup of Fructidor in 1797 and Coup of Floréal in 1798), which eroded respect for constitutional authority.
- **Economic Hardship:** Despite financial reforms, inflation remained high initially, the treasury was virtually bankrupt in 1797 (leading to the cancellation of two-thirds of the national debt), and food shortages continued to affect ordinary citizens.
- **Corruption and Cynicism:** The political class, led by figures like Barras, was widely perceived as corrupt, self-serving, and unprincipled, which alienated the population.
- **Reliance on the Military:** The Directory’s survival depended on the army to put down popular unrest and enforce political decisions. This politicization of the military directly enabled the Coup of Brumaire in November 1799.

**Level 5 (16–20 marks):** Identifies a clear, balanced argument on both the successes (constitutional order, military victories, currency reform) and the failures (coups, financial crisis, reliance on the military) of the Directory. Provides a sustained, analytical judgment that evaluates the extent of stability achieved.

**Level 4 (11–15 marks):** Analytical answer that explores both sides of the debate but may lean more heavily toward either success or failure. Supported by solid historical details.

**Level 3 (6–10 marks):** Descriptive narrative of the Directory's rule. Offers some relevant links to stability but lacks deep analysis or balanced evaluation.

**Level 2 (3–5 marks):** General assertions about the French Revolution or Napoleon, with little specific knowledge of the Directory itself.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):** Fragmentary or irrelevant remarks.

To answer this question, candidates should evaluate the traditional historiographical distinction between the 'First' and 'Second' New Deals, assessing how far their respective policy priorities aligned with relief, recovery, or reform.

**Arguments supporting the view that the First focused on Relief/Recovery and the Second on Reform:**
- **First New Deal (Relief/Recovery):** Aimed to solve the immediate economic emergency. Relief measures included the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Recovery measures aimed at restarting the economy, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA/NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), and the Emergency Banking Act.
- **Second New Deal (Reform):** Shifted toward permanent, structural transformations of American society and economy. Key reform legislation included the Social Security Act (1935), which created a federal safety net; the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act of 1935), which permanently strengthened union rights; and the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), which regulated wages and hours.

**Arguments challenging this neat division (points of overlap and continuity):**
- **First New Deal Reforms:** Significant structural reforms were introduced early on. For example, the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933 reformed the financial sector and created the FDIC; the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established to regulate Wall Street; and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) represented long-term, regional structural planning.
- **Second New Deal Relief/Recovery:** The Second New Deal still relied heavily on massive relief initiatives to combat unemployment, most notably through the establishment of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935, which employed millions of Americans on public works projects.

**Level 5 (16–20 marks):** Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the historiographical debate. Offers a balanced and deeply analytical comparison of both New Deals, highlighting specific legislative acts (e.g., AAA, NIRA, WPA, Social Security Act) to evaluate the relief/recovery vs. reform thesis.

**Level 4 (11–15 marks):** Analytical response that explains the differences between the two phases of the New Deal, supported by good factual evidence, though one side of the argument may be more thoroughly developed than the other.

**Level 3 (6–10 marks):** Primarily descriptive. Lists various New Deal agencies and acts with some attempt to categorize them into relief, recovery, or reform, but lacks a cohesive, analytical thesis.

**Level 2 (3–5 marks):** Basic, generalized account of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency and the New Deal with limited distinction between the phases.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):** Superficially relevant or inaccurate answer.

In this extract, the historian presents a classic Revisionist argument concerning the origins of the Cold War. The core argument is that American economic needs, rather than Soviet ideological aggression, drove the confrontation. The historian asserts that American capitalism required foreign markets to maintain its wartime economic boom and avoid reverting to the Great Depression. To justify this expansion, the Truman administration exaggerated the Soviet threat, mischaracterizing legitimate Soviet security concerns in Eastern Europe as aggression. The extract reinterprets key American policies: the Marshall Plan is viewed not as humanitarian aid but as an economic weapon designed to bind Western Europe to the US and isolate the USSR, while 'brandishing the atomic monopoly' (atomic diplomacy) is seen as a bullying tactic. To support this analysis, candidates should deploy historical knowledge of Revisionist historiography (e.g., William Appleman Williams' 'The Tragedy of American Diplomacy' or Gabriel Kolko's work). They should discuss the context of the Open Door policy, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan (1947), and the atomic bombings of 1945. They should contrast this Revisionist perspective with the Orthodox view (which blames Soviet expansionism and Stalin's ideology) and the Post-Revisionist view (which emphasizes mutual misunderstanding, security dilemmas, and joint responsibility) to demonstrate a sophisticated grasp of the historiographical debate.

Level 6 (33–40 marks): Candidates demonstrate a complete and nuanced understanding of the historian's Revisionist interpretation, supported by precise analysis of the extract and comprehensive, detailed historical knowledge of the Cold War debates. Level 5 (25–32 marks): Candidates clearly identify the Revisionist interpretation (blaming US economic imperialism) and explain it using appropriate references to the extract and solid historical context. Level 4 (17–24 marks): Candidates show a good understanding of the interpretation but may rely more on summarizing the extract or present a more limited range of contextual support. Level 3 (9–16 marks): Candidates identify specific points in the extract but struggle to synthesize them into a coherent argument about the overall interpretation, or treat the extract primarily as a factual source. Level 2 (5–8 marks): Candidates offer a basic, superficial summary of the extract with minimal historical context. Level 1 (1–4 marks): Candidates write generally about the Cold War with little or no engagement with the extract or its interpretation.

This essay requires a balanced analysis of Mussolini's domestic policies in Italy between 1925 and 1939, evaluating how far they successfully inculcated fascist ideology across Italian society.

Arguments supporting the view that he succeeded:
1. Youth Mobilisation: The Opera Nazionale Balilla (ONB) successfully incorporated millions of children, indoctrinating them with militaristic and fascist values through school curricula, physical training, and summer camps.
2. Leisure and Work Control: The Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) became highly popular, providing subsidized leisure, travel, and entertainment, which helped manufacture passive consent and gratitude toward the regime.
3. Media and Propaganda: Cult of the Duce (Il Duce) was highly effective through state-controlled newspapers, radio broadcasts, and newsreels (LUCE), creating a pervasive image of Mussolini as Italy's savior.
4. Religious Accord: The Lateran Pacts of 1929 resolved the 'Roman Question', gaining the regime valuable institutional legitimacy and the active endorsement of the Catholic clergy, which reconciled many traditional Catholics to the fascist state.

Arguments opposing the view (identifying failures and limitations):
1. Superficial Compliance: For many Italians, membership in the PNF, ONB, or OND was a matter of economic and professional survival ('tessera del pane' or bread card) rather than genuine ideological conviction.
2. Failure of Economic 'Battles': Campaigns like the 'Battle for Births' and 'Battle for Land' failed to meet their radical social engineering targets, often causing private resentment.
3. Institutional Limits: Unlike Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's dictatorship was a compromise. The King remained the official head of state and head of the armed forces; the military retained its traditional hierarchy, and the Catholic Church maintained its own youth movement (Catholic Action) despite fascist pressure.
4. Regional Divides: Fascistization was largely an urban and northern phenomenon; the rural south remained largely untouched, dominated by traditional landowner structures and poverty.

Conclusion:
Mussolini succeeded in creating a 'nation of fascists' only in terms of outward ritual, public obedience, and passive conformity. Beneath this surface layer of consent, the core structures of Italian society remained loyal to traditional authorities, preventing the total fascistization of the Italian people.

Generic Level Descriptors for Paper 4 (30-mark essay):
Level 6 (25-30 marks): Clear, focused, and analytical response. Demonstrates high-quality historical knowledge and understanding of the key concepts. Evaluates alternative explanations and presents a sustained, balanced, and persuasive argument leading to a logical conclusion.
Level 5 (19-24 marks): Analytical response with a clear and consistent focus on the question. Demonstrates good historical knowledge. Explores different perspectives and provides a structured, balanced argument supported by relevant evidence.
Level 4 (13-18 marks): Explanatory response that addresses the question but contains some narrative or descriptive passages. Shows sound knowledge but may lack depth or balance in places.
Level 3 (8-12 marks): Mainly narrative or descriptive response. Addresses the general topic but has limited focus on the specific question. Claims are made but with little supporting evidence.
Level 2 (1-7 marks): Limited or fragmented response. Shows basic knowledge but struggles to address the question directly. Lack of structure and historical detail.
Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no historical value.

This essay requires a balanced assessment of the achievements and limitations of Detente during the 1970s.

Arguments supporting the statement (Detente as a mere disguise/tactic for competition):
1. Continuous Proxy Conflict: Despite agreements, both superpowers continued to vie for global influence in the Third World. The Soviet Union supported Marxist movements in Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia, while the US supported anti-communist forces.
2. Persistent Arms Race: Although SALT I capped launchers, it did not restrict Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), allowing both sides to dramatically increase their nuclear warhead counts throughout the 1970s.
3. Human Rights Tension: The Soviet Union largely ignored the humanitarian provisions (Basket Three) of the Helsinki Accords, leading to persistent Western criticism and demonstrating a lack of ideological convergence.
4. Ultimate Collapse: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 exposed the fragility of Detente, showing that the USSR was still prepared to use direct military force to expand or protect its sphere of influence, prompting a rapid return to Cold War hostilities under Carter and Reagan.

Arguments opposing the statement (Detente as a genuine and substantive shift):
1. Arms Limitation Accords: The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) in 1972 and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty placed genuine, legally binding limits on strategic offensive and defensive weapons systems, reducing the fear of a first-strike capability.
2. Normalisation of Relations in Europe: Ostpolitik, initiated by West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, led to the Basic Treaty (1972), normalising relations between East and West Germany, while the Helsinki Accords (1975) formally recognized the post-WWII European borders, stabilizing a primary flashpoint.
3. Diplomatic Dialogue and Economic Cooperation: Detente opened up regular summitry, direct communication, and grain and technology trade between the US and USSR, creating interdependence and reducing the risk of miscalculation.
4. Sino-US rapprochement: Nixon's 1972 visit to China transformed the tripolar balance of power, forcing the USSR to seek better relations with the US to avoid isolation.

Conclusion:
Detente was never intended to end the ideological and geopolitical competition of the Cold War, but rather to manage it safely. While proxy conflicts and the arms race continued, Detente was more than a mere 'disguise'; it produced concrete institutional frameworks, arms caps, and diplomatic mechanisms that reduced systemic instability and prevented a catastrophic nuclear conflict.

Generic Level Descriptors for Paper 4 (30-mark essay):
Level 6 (25-30 marks): Clear, focused, and analytical response. Demonstrates high-quality historical knowledge and understanding of the key concepts. Evaluates alternative explanations and presents a sustained, balanced, and persuasive argument leading to a logical conclusion.
Level 5 (19-24 marks): Analytical response with a clear and consistent focus on the question. Demonstrates good historical knowledge. Explores different perspectives and provides a structured, balanced argument supported by relevant evidence.
Level 4 (13-18 marks): Explanatory response that addresses the question but contains some narrative or descriptive passages. Shows sound knowledge but may lack depth or balance in places.
Level 3 (8-12 marks): Mainly narrative or descriptive response. Addresses the general topic but has limited focus on the specific question. Claims are made but with little supporting evidence.
Level 2 (1-7 marks): Limited or fragmented response. Shows basic knowledge but struggles to address the question directly. Lack of structure and historical detail.
Level 0 (0 marks): No response or response contains no historical value.