Transcription

1 HISTORY Paper 9697/11 Paper 11 Key messages Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level Taking a few minutes to plan responses helps candidates to stay focused on the question. The most effective responses to Section A grouped the sources according to the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the hypothesis and assessed their reliability by cross-referencing and contextual knowledge. The best answers to Section B were typically well organised, presented a balanced argument and were supported by well chosen, precise information. General comments The general standard of the scripts was satisfactory and a considerable number achieved very high marks. The majority of candidates achieved a similar standard in both the essay and source-based section. There were comparatively few incomplete scripts and most candidates had sufficient time in which to complete their four answers. The most frequent way in which candidates might have improved their work was by developing answers further. The weakest scripts tended to contain answers that were too brief and too general. Detailed comments on Question 1 are given below but a general word of advice would be that it is helpful to candidates when they write brief plans, either in their answer booklets or on the question paper, to show how far each source agrees or disagrees with the hypothesis. This helps candidates to organise their answers. The same advice can be applied to the essay responses. Short plans do not take long to write and provide a framework that candidates can develop. Relevance is a fundamental quality and this includes attention to any dates in questions. For example, Question 4 was on Italy from 1848 to Successful candidates showed an understanding of the period as a whole. Weaker responses only addressed part of the period. Some explained the problems of nationalists in but did not deal with developments to 1870, such as the periods of Cavour s leadership, Garibaldi s campaign in the south and the final inclusions of Venetia and Rome. Question 7 asked how far Germany had become a totalitarian state by the end of The best responses focused on this timeframe while weaker ones tended to offer general surveys up to Sound candidates explained that Hitler gained considerable political powers by the specified date but his authority was not complete in every sphere. Material on the later period to 1939 could not be given much credit. Some questions, such as Questions 3 and 6 asked candidates to consider two aspects of a topic. More creditable answers were reasonably balanced, demonstrating that candidates had a more rounded understanding of the topic. More limited responses tended to deal with only one aspect. Comments on specific questions Section A Question The most effective responses came from candidates who grouped the sources according to the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the hypothesis. Sources A, B and D strongly agreed. Source C saw the members of the Triple Entente as a potential rather than a current threat, while Source E denied that the Triple Entente was a threat in 1914, claiming that Britain had limited commitments to the Entente and that France also had peaceful aims. This grouping was then reflected in the structure of the answers of the better candidates. More moderate responses often treated the sources in a sequential manner. Whereas less creditable answers accepted all of the sources at face value and made no references to their reliability, more 1

2 thoughtful candidates used the sources as evidence and assessed their reliability and usefulness. For example, a number of candidates referred to the intemperate language of Source A. They identified the author as the person who was responsible for the Schlieffen Plan. Good candidates made a contrast between Sources A and C. The latter was also written by a German but was more moderate; believing that there was a balance of power in 1914, although it might break down in the future. Some candidates could have improved their evaluations if they had used less automatic tests. For example, politicians such as Grey in Source E do not always speak reliably to Parliament. Their claims can be tested against contextual knowledge and other sources. Section B Question 2 The general quality of the answers was sound, combining relevant and secure knowledge on the aims of Napoleon. The most frequent difference between moderate and very successful answers was that the latter linked their description of Napoleon s policies closely to his aims. For example, many candidates discussed religious policies, including the Concordat with the Pope, but some did not consider how far, or why, these policies related to his aims. Similarly there were some informed descriptions of the Code, education and economic changes and these were most effective when they were clearly linked to Napoleon s aims. Some of the most effective responses considered political aspects of the question, explaining the powers that Napoleon enjoyed as First Consul and Emperor. They looked at his administration, relations with ministers and local officials and considered the police. The more successful answers considered alternative explanations by examining other possible aims of Napoleon, for example that he wished to save the Revolution against the extremism of radicals and the counter-revolutionary tendencies of those who still supported a monarchy. Question 3 The key issue was the extent to which Britain and France were industrialised by the middle of the nineteenth century. The standard of the answers was variable for two reasons. The most successful responses focused on the issue of How far? and also offered accounts that were reasonably balanced between Britain and France. By contrast, more moderate answers implied that both Britain and France were fully industrialised by the middle of the century. Some weaker responses strayed into a later period or contained general accounts of the Industrial Revolution which were not applied to particular countries. A number of answers made thoughtful points. For example, the 1851 Census showed that a majority of people in Britain lived in towns and cities. Most French people still lived in rural areas. Some candidates were aware that Britain had more railways than France. France had as many raw materials, such as coal, as Britain but was less successful in exploiting them. Britain s industrial middle and lower classes formed a higher proportion of the population than in France. Some candidates exaggerated Britain s imperial possessions by the middle of the century but many explained how Britain s growing overseas trade stimulated its industrial strength. Question 4 Candidates were required to assess the problems facing Italian nationalists in unifying Italy and the question specified the relevant period as 1848 to There were many commendable answers that analysed several reasons and supported their claims with appropriate knowledge. Some answers reached the middle mark bands because, while relevant, they provided less coverage of the timeframe. They were sometimes confident about the problems facing nationalists in 1848 but were uncertain about developments from 1849, especially in the 1860s and the final stage of unification in There were sound explanations of the changing role of Austria, from one of strength in 1848 to weakness by the mid-1860s. Some candidates were confident about differences between Cavour, Garibaldi and Mazzini. There were some effective appraisals of the role of Pope Pius IX and the kings of Piedmont. Others dealt with the leaders in more general ways and, while there was some relevance, the precision showed by the most successful answers was lacking. One of the characteristics of the best answers was that they dealt with Garibaldi s difficulties in his campaign in southern Italy and with the final problem of Rome. Weaker responses included narrative but less careful explanations. Question 5 The quotation in the question claimed that few Europeans gained anything from New Imperialism and it was necessary to consider this claim. Candidates were able to argue that either way and could gain maximum credit as long as they justified their case using arguments and supporting knowledge. For example, a number of European countries found that their colonial acquisitions yielded few profits and did not result in 2

3 enhanced political status. Italy s African territories might have provided an example. French colonies in North Africa brought little economic benefit, as did German gains in the Pacific. A number of candidates referred to and assessed such possibilities. Moderate answers were often more confident in dealing with colonial gains but some candidates exaggerated aspects of benefits. For example, few Europeans migrated to the regions gained in New Imperialism. Many more sought their fortunes in other regions such as America. Candidates were asked to refer to Britain and at least two other European countries and a satisfactory proportion did so. The tendency of weaker answers was to make limited use of overseas examples whereas the best essays mentioned specific regions of Africa or Asia. They also considered a wide range of issues that were relevant to the extent of benefits, including strategic, political, economic and social factors. Question 6 There were many well balanced responses which gave approximately equal attention to the Provisional Government gaining, and then losing, power in Russia in Most candidates showed adequate understanding and knowledge of the main issues. There were sound analyses of the reasons why Nicholas II abdicated and power was handed to the Provisional Government. Some moderate essays included long surveys of Tsarist rule to 1917 but did not explain why the Provisional Government took over. It was relevant to discuss developments in Russia before 1917, especially the effects of World War I, but the better responses linked these to the Provisional Government. In dealing with the other aspect of the question, the most successful answers considered the weakness of the Provisional Government, including the reasons why it did not enjoy more support. They examined the reasons for the ultimate victory of Lenin s Bolsheviks and failure of Kerensky s government. Credit was given when candidates supported their arguments with references to specific developments in 1917, for example, Lenin s April Theses, the July Days and the Kornilov Affair. These were explained clearly rather than being merely mentioned. Some essays were weakened by confused chronology, for example discussing events that took place after Lenin gained power. It is important to note that such weaknesses were comparatively rare. Question 7 The characteristic that defined the most successful answers was that they considered how far Germany was a totalitarian state by Many candidates were able to describe the various ways in which Nazi Germany was a dictatorship but some answers were limited because they assumed that the country was totalitarian as soon as Hitler won power. Credit was given when candidates explained the stages by which he gained power in 1933 and These included the impact of the Reichstag Fire and the Enabling Act. On the other hand, the most perceptive candidates appreciated that Hitler s control was not complete by the end of Perhaps most important were the army and the economy. It was several years before the Führer was in full control of the army while, unlike Stalin in the USSR, he did not fully direct the economy. Some candidates were able to refer to small pockets in society that continued to resist Nazi rule. However, their influence was so small that it cannot be denied that Germany ultimately became a totalitarian country. Question 8 Candidates were asked to consider the claim that the Industrial Revolution was the most important cause of The New Imperialism in the later nineteenth century. Candidates were rewarded when they suggested a range of relevant reasons for New Imperialism. They could agree or disagree with the claim in the question but it was necessary to support arguments with appropriate knowledge. Many answers were able to make convincing links between industrialisation and imperialism. These included the search for raw materials needed in European industries and some, such as diamonds and gold, that were valued by wealthy people in Europe. These raw materials were most secure when their origins were controlled in colonies. Other reasons that were suggested are more open to debate. For example markets were mentioned but many colonial regions, especially in Africa, were too poor to be useful in this respect. The opportunity to ease surplus population was sometimes claimed to be important but comparatively few Europeans migrated voluntarily to new colonial regions, although these required soldiers to safeguard them and officials to govern them. Investment was another debatable issue. Wealthier European countries had money to invest but most did so in other regions. Some reasons are agreed more universally, for example the strategic reasons for imperial expansion. More credit was given when candidates included specific examples of European countries and non-european regions to illustrate their claims. 3

4 HISTORY Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level Paper 9697/12 Paper 12 Key messages Taking a few minutes to plan responses helps candidates to stay focused on the question. The most effective responses to Section A grouped the sources according to the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the hypothesis and assessed their reliability by cross-referencing and contextual knowledge. The best answers to Section B were typically well organised, presented a balanced argument and were supported by well chosen, precise information. General comments The quality of the scripts was variable. Some deserved high marks for their understanding, knowledge and ability to deal relevantly with the questions that were asked. Others achieved lower marks because they wrote more generally and often more briefly. In answering Question 1, candidates were awarded higher marks when they avoided long summaries or paraphrases of the sources, or extensive quotations from them. References to the sources are necessary but they can be brief. A few candidates made little use of the printed extracts and wrote general essays about the causes of World War I. On the other hand, candidates were highly rewarded when they concentrated on explaining how far they agreed with the hypothesis, or claim in the question. Better answers were rewarded when they came to clear conclusions about whether they agreed with the hypothesis. The sources should be used as historical evidence. That is, candidates should consider how reliable they are and which parts are most relevant to answer the question. Contextual knowledge is given credit but only when it is connected to the question. The most effective use of knowledge was when it was linked to relations between Britain, France and Germany. General discussions of the causes of the world war were not needed. More successful candidates looked at the essay questions to decide what were the key words or key phrases. For example, Question 2 was about the rise and fall of the Jacobins during the French Revolution. High marks were awarded when candidates considered the entire question, giving approximately equal time to both aspects. Good answers included brief but pertinent introductions that avoided unnecessary background. They also came to short conclusions that emphasised the main points of the argument. Such essays were well structured with the most important points made first. Comments on specific questions Section A Question 1 More creditable answers gained higher marks because they grouped the sources, showing how far they agreed or disagreed with the hypothesis. For example, the British Foreign Minister in Source A saw no alternative in 1906 to British support of France, although he was appalled at the prospect of war. He still held this view in 1914, as shown in Source E, but he would not go so far as to give France an absolute guarantee. Source B provided an alternative opinion, that the Franco-British Entente was not a formal understanding and did not involve commitments. The Entente might be meaningless for Britain, even in an emergency. The German Ambassador in Source C assured his government that Grey promised him that there were no concrete promises by Britain of help for Germany. Contacts between Britain and France were at a lower and informal level. Grey also referred to Britain s dilemma in Source D. Higher marks were awarded when candidates assessed the value of the sources and then applied this evaluation to their 4

5 arguments. For example, three of the extracts referred to Grey, an important minister in the British government. Two of them, Sources A and D, were written by Grey himself and could be compared to assess the consistency of his view. In Source C Lichnowsky reported his conversation with Grey to his government. It was probably an accurate account and confirmed that Grey, representing his own government s view, probably wished to remain uncommitted. The general quality of the answers was satisfactory and some responses deserved high marks. Weaker responses often explained the sources sequentially and some only provided summaries of their content. Such answers might have been improved if the candidates had considered the question as a whole and planned their responses more carefully. Section B Question 2 High marks were awarded to answers that were balanced between the rise and fall of the Jacobins. Moderate answers might have been improved if they had dealt equally with the Jacobins rise and fall. Explaining their changing fortunes involved more than presenting a narrative of the relevant period. More successful answers went further and explained what happened to the Jacobins. For example, credit was given when candidates explained why the fall of Louis XVI s monarchy favoured the Jacobins. Some sound answers were wide-ranging and included the discussion of factors such as war, increasing inflation and economic hardship and the rivalry between different radical groups. Sound answers understood why the Jacobins outmanoeuvred the Girondins. There were many convincing accounts of their fall, combining reasons and accurate supporting knowledge. A number focused on Robespierre, explaining why he exercised such personal influence and then became isolated. In explaining the Jacobins fall, there were relevant references to the success of measures to crush counter-revolution and to defend France against foreign enemies. Their methods owed much to the use of terror and extreme force. It is possible to argue that the Jacobins success led to their decline because it was no longer necessary to depend on them when immediate dangers to the Revolution were over. Some candidates pointed out the failure of some of their policies, such as inflation, the introduction of assignats and policies towards religion. The Church was unpopular as an institution but the attack on Christianity itself was a step too far. Question 3 The question asked candidates to Assess the claim that steam power was the most important cause of the Industrial Revolution. The preferred way of tackling this instruction was to present points in favour of the stated claim and then to discuss alternatives, explaining why these were more or less important. There were many sound answers that were fully relevant and varied in their explanations. Arguments were supported by appropriate knowledge. More moderate answers tended to be narrower; some interpreted steam power as applying only to steam ships whereas the better essays properly included railways and other uses for steam such as in factory machines. Candidates varied in their ability to cite examples from two countries. The most effective answers included sufficient examples whereas weaker responses were vague. Among alternative explanations that were included were the Agricultural Revolution, capital investment, national policies and changing social conditions, including urbanisation. The main difference between highly creditable and less impressive answers was that the former linked the factors to industrialisation. For example, sometimes accurate accounts of the Agricultural Revolution were given but it was not shown how agricultural changes related to the Industrial Revolution. Question 4 The key issue was the reasons why Bismarck was more successful than the Liberals in unifying Germany. The general quality of the answers was competent. The most frequent discriminating factor was candidates success in dealing with the Liberals. The question asked Why? and the best way to tackle it was to provide and explain a series of reasons. Most answers displayed at least a basic knowledge of Bismarck. Many candidates went beyond a narrative to present reasons for Bismarck s success. The most accomplished answers were able to compare Bismarck and the Liberals. Most often, they focused on the Liberals failure in the Revolution but some excellent responses also dealt with the Liberals in the 1860s. For example, they showed how Bismarck overcame the Liberals suspicions of the army budget, the immediate reason why he was given power by the King. A contrast was made between Bismarck s forcefulness and apparent clear-minded attitude and the lack of clarity and leadership among the Liberals. Some answers gained credit by looking at wider aspects than the wars of unification. They explained Prussia s economic strength, especially the importance of the Zollverein. 5

6 Question 5 The main difference between moderate and good responses was that, while most candidates could explain why empires were a necessity, fewer considered the alternative that they could be seen as a luxury. There was a tendency in weaker responses to offer general accounts of imperialism that lacked precise examples. For example, Africa and Asia are too large to be described in vague terms such as Britain and France had colonies in Africa. More creditable responses were more specific. Some essays did not distinguish between necessity and luxury. For example, they considered colonies to be a necessity and then listed raw materials such as cocoa, diamonds and ivory, better used as examples of luxury. Another reason why some colonies might be seen as luxuries is that they yielded no economic or strategic benefit. The costs were greater than the gains. In dealing with necessity, candidates considered a range of factors, including political, strategic, economic and social issues. The most perceptive candidates pointed out that some reasons for imperial expansion that were seen as necessary in the nineteenth century, such as Christian conversion and cultural improvement, might be viewed differently in the modern world. Question 6 The question asked why the reforms of Witte and Stolypin did not save Russia from revolution in February Most candidates explained the general reasons why Nicholas II lost power. They were well-informed about his personal responsibility, his lack of leadership in the war and his reactionary policies. By 1917, he had cut himself off from his traditional supporters, including the army. Many answers were aware of the general social and economic problems of Russia, some deep-rooted and others dependent on the short-term effects of war. Some candidates referred to Witte and Stolypin in general terms and understood the context of Russia that they could not change, including the Tsar s lack of interest in reform. The reforming ministers were mostly isolated. The most influential groups in Russia shared Nicholas II s tendencies. The best answers were able to specify some of their reforms and explain why they failed, showing an impressive range of understanding and knowledge. A few candidates were uncertain about the chronology of the February 1917 Revolution and exaggerated the importance of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Question 7 The key issue was the extent to which Stalin achieved his domestic aims by There were sound answers that specified Stalin s aims. One of these was to gain personal power. Soon after Lenin s death, he removed rivals, first men such as Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, and later Bukharin and very possibly Kirov. The Great Purge of went further, to liquidate real or imagined enemies of Stalin in the communist party and Red Army. The victims included those in the highest circles but then spread to others in the middle and lower groups. The best responses showed an understanding of the range of victims who were purged. There is no doubt that he fully achieved this aim. Another aim was to modernise the economy. He was aware that the country lagged behind and the result was the Five Year Plans ( , and ) and the collectivisation of agriculture, which were implemented ruthlessly. The emphasis was on heavy industry. The human costs were unimportant. No doubt, industrial and agricultural production increased but the best answers questioned how far the official figures of unremitting success could be trusted. Output was often exaggerated in official figures, sometimes by the government and sometimes by local officials who feared the consequences if they did not meet targets. Propaganda was important to Stalin. It conveyed a picture in which he was responsible for every success while failure was the result of political or economic saboteurs. Most answers were relevant and the level of understanding and knowledge was usually sound. Question 8 To achieve the highest bands answers needed to compare the relative success of the French Revolution and the Italian revolutions of , and be reasonably balanced between them. Some candidates opted for the greater success of one and gave the other scant attention. The most effective responses considered relative success whereas weaker ones provided two narratives with less argument and assessment. Credit was given when candidates considered alternatives. For example, some pointed out that the French Revolution can be counted a success because it abolished the absolute monarchy and ended privilege. However, they also recognised that the decade after 1789 saw political, economic and social instability. Order was not restored until Napoleon, another absolute ruler, took power. In the short term the Italian revolutions failed but they had an effect in the longer term. They laid a foundation on which later nationalists could build. The quality of the answers was variable and some candidates found it difficult to make valid comparisons. 6

7 HISTORY Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level Paper 9697/13 Paper 13 Key messages Taking a few minutes to plan responses helps candidates to stay focused on the questions. The most effective responses to Section A grouped the sources according to the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the hypothesis and assessed their reliability by cross-referencing and contextual knowledge. The best answers to Section B were typically well organised, presented a balanced argument and were supported by well chosen, precise information. General comments The overall standard of the work was high and there were comparatively few weak responses. The main characteristics of the scripts were their relevance, varied arguments and appropriate knowledge. There were few incomplete scripts and most candidates used their time effectively. Answering Question 1, the best candidates avoided long summaries or paraphrases of the sources and made brief but pointed references. They did not keep to a sequential approach but organised their answers more effectively by dealing with the sources in groups. This made it easier to compare and contrast the extracts and therefore consider their reliability. Many candidates also used contextual knowledge to evaluate the sources. In Section B, three essay questions asked Why? This instruction indicates that candidates should analyse and explain factors, giving reasons for their conclusions. Question 3 offered candidates two alternative judgements about the Industrial Revolution. Both could be justified. Moderate answers sometimes opted for one but higher marks were given when both alternatives were considered and reasons given why one view should be preferred. Questions 7 and 8 were comparative and needed a similar approach, with good candidates examining both of the stated aspects. Comments on specific questions Section A Question 1 The most successful candidates came to conclusions that they justified by using a combination of study of the sources and appropriate knowledge to support or contradict them. Most answers deserved credit for their evaluation of the extracts although the quality of the anaysis varied. More moderate responses sometimes resorted to automatic judgements; Sources A and B were accepted as reliable because they were reports from German diplomats to their government. Diplomatic exchanges are not always reliable. The better responses judged reliability not only on provenance, although this is important, but also because of their intention and content. Source C might be seen as reliable if we accept the reliability of another official, but his announcement was directed to a leading member of a German nationalist society and this lessens the likelihood of the source being objective. The Kaiser s handwritten notes in Source B had the value that they almost certainly reflected his personal views. Contextual knowledge can confirm or contradict the opinions of the modern British historian in Source E. Most candidates grouped the sources, seeing the common features in Sources A, most of Source B and Source C and the contradictions between these and other parts of Source B, Source D and Source E. The best candidates used this grouping to structure their answers. 7

8 Section B Question 2 The most frequent discriminating factor between answers that deserved high marks and those that merited marks in the middle or lower bands was that the former explained attempts at reform whereas the latter usually contained general accounts of the ancien régime. The best answers explained how some Controllers General tried to improve the situation. Louis XVI called a meeting of the Assembly of Notables and finally convened the Estates General. With this basis, the better responses explained why attempts to reform failed. The question asked Why? and credit was given when candidates wrote analytical answers, defining and explaining a series of reasons. Among relevant points were assessments of the kings, especially Louis XVI. He was not completely opposed to reform but was too weak to support reformers against the reactionary tendencies of nobles, Church and his queen. The governmental system of absolute monarchy meant that this was a determining factor in implementing or resisting change. Candidates were credited when they explained the effects of the dire financial situation on France. Many were aware of France s debts but some did not consider why measures to remedy the situation were unsuccessful. More successful accounts looked at the ways in which change was obstructed. Privileged groups and institutions such as the Parlements were able to resist change while the Third Estate, especially the bourgeoisie, was denied political influence. There were many impressive responses, displaying wide ranging knowledge and understanding. Question 3 The overall quality of the answers was good with most candidates writing relevant and well organised essays. The most successful considered gains and losses for the working classes, and came to clear conclusions about the balance of judgement. It was not necessary to give equal space to benefit and harm as this depended on the argument. However worthwhile answers will always consider alternatives. Candidates were asked to refer to two countries of Britain, France and Germany. This was intended to deter them from writing vague essays and most achieved this by mentioning some of the major industrial and urban centres of their selected countries. Some weaker answers limited themselves to poor social conditions such as housing and disease. Credit was given when candidates pointed out that these problems were moderated by the end of the century. Some perceptive candidates pointed out that living in rural, agricultural regions had usually been harsh for the working classes. There were some reforms in working conditions and some were able to enjoy the benefits of education and even limited leisure activities. Industry provided reasonably secure employment. Except for periods of economic depression, work was generally plentiful. The most creditable answers took a wider perspective. For example, industrialisation brought urbanisation which in turn enabled the working classes to exert more political power. The attempts of other classes to prevent this were replaced by the end of the century by a willingness to widen the franchise to men, although most power remained with the wealthier classes. Question 4 The question contained a comparative judgement and the best responses compared Garibaldi with other leaders, especially Mazzini and Cavour. A few candidates considered the importance of the kings of Piedmont. Some candidates limited their answers to Garibaldi s 1860 campaign in the south and its immediate aftermath. This approach was relevant but too narrow to merit the highest bands. Better answers included Garibaldi s contribution to the revolutions and the best went beyond narrative to explain his importance. For example, his success in the south probably persuaded Cavour to go further than he intended and extend unification to the entire peninsula. On the other hand, he could not prevent Cavour s cession of Nice and Savoy and the republican Garibaldi was sufficiently realistic to hand over his conquests to Piedmont s monarchy. As with Garibaldi, the better discussions of Mazzini and Cavour included assessments of their successes and failures. For example, some accounts of Mazzini included only references to his failures such as the revolution, his impractical view that Italian unification did not need foreign help and the ultimate success of a monarchy over his preference for a republic. However, some candidates noted that he inspired later nationalists even if they disagreed with his particular aims and methods. Question 5 There were many highly effective responses to this question. Candidates could suggest other reasons for the extensive development of New Imperialism but needed to explain the stated factor for a high mark. A feature of good answers was that they included European and overseas examples, although it was possible to select these from either Africa or Asia. The support for imperialism in Britain, France and Germany was evident. Some candidates pointed out that Bismarck and Disraeli were at first reluctant imperialists but 8

9 changed their policies when they realised that they could win votes by bending to public opinion. In an age of increasing literacy, and with the spread of public entertainment, those involved in imperial ventures such as Livingstone, Stanley and Karl Peters became popular heroes. The White Fathers were widely supported in France. The public shared in national pride at the growth of colonies. Some historians have argued that this was because most Europeans with poor living standards had little else to excite them. The best answers explored other reasons and commented on how far they reflected public opinion, some appreciating the limits of this argument. For example, support for Christian expansion was evident even among Europeans who were not themselves very religious. The search for regions in which to invest or serve as markets was the concern of the few, rather than the many. A few candidates made the excellent point that, while support for imperialism was widespread, it was not universal. Radical groups were suspicious and imperialism was challenged in Britain after the Boer wars. Question 6 Many candidates wrote analytical essays that dealt with Lenin s personal influence, the reasons why he gained support and the weakness of the opposition. Some answers were particularly effective in showing how his fortunes changed during the course of Lenin was a well-known but not highly influential person at the time of the February Revolution. He was surprised by the outbreak of that revolution and his Bolsheviks did not play an important part in it. He was himself in exile. There were some creditable references to events in 1917 with the most effective linking them to the changing fortunes of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Most candidates recorded accurately his popular slogans such as Land, Peace and Bread, but the most effective answers explained these and showed why they gained support. It was relevant to explain the background to 1917 as long as it was linked to the key issue. The split among the Social Democrats left Lenin with a small group of revolutionaries but he became their undisputed leader. The effectiveness of a dedicated, disciplined party was important when he came to seize power and enabled him to survive setbacks, such as the July Days. The October Revolution was itself a coup by a small group of people and Lenin himself demanded that they should take action. Credit was given when candidates explained the inability of Kerensky and the Provisional Government to win more support. Very few responses reflected insecure knowledge. Question 7 A high proportion of candidates wrote relevant, well-balanced answers, giving approximately equal attention to both Lenin and Stalin. The main limitation of weaker answers was that they did not provide an effective comparison. They usually went into detail about Stalin but were less confident in dealing with Lenin. Most argued that Stalin departed radically from Lenin s policies but the most persuasive essays also appreciated similarities. Stalin was more extreme and undiscriminating in his use of terror but the effects of Lenin s Cheka should not be underestimated. The tendency in some answers was to highlight Stalin s cruelty by underestimating Lenin s forcefulness. There were usually good appraisals of economic policies contrasting Lenin s NEP with Stalin s collectivisation and industrialisation. However, it should be remembered that Lenin probably did not intend the NEP to be a permanent policy, adopting it as a temporary expedient to survive an economic crisis. Most saw Stalin s purges as essentially different from Lenin s policies but the latter s toleration should not be exaggerated. Lenin tolerated different opinions within the Bolshevik group to some extent but not opposition from outside and always maintained his personal primacy. A good point that some made was that Stalin portrayed himself as Lenin s heir and true successor. He destroyed many of Lenin s associates when he established himself in power but never tried to discredit Lenin himself. Question 8 Answers were awarded high marks when they defined Marxism and Liberalism and when they supported their arguments with references to particular countries. They generally pointed out that Marxism appealed to a minority, even in Russia which saw a Marxist revolution soon after Liberalism had less of an appeal in Russia than in France and particularly Britain. Bismarck and William II perceived Marxists to be a danger in Germany. Liberals in that country struggled against a government and the established classes that were dominated by conservative and military influences. The standard of the answers was usually satisfactory but some were too vague to deserve the highest bands. 9

10 HISTORY Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level Paper 9697/21 Paper 21 Key messages Candidates are urged to plan their essays before beginning to write. This will enable them to marshal their knowledge and deploy it in an analytical manner. The key to answering the questions in Section B is for candidates to use their subject knowledge to address the question directly and to avoid lengthy descriptive passages. General comments Many candidates produced good quality answers to the source based question and there were some very impressive responses to Questions 2 to 8. There were still some issues with time management and some candidates found it difficult to complete their final answer. This is a key feature of examination technique which candidates must appreciate. Also it is vital that candidates have both a solid factual knowledge of each topic and then use this subject material in an analytical manner to answer the questions. A wide range of responses was seen. The best candidates produced scripts which were excellent throughout. Candidates at this level wrote analytical answers, with good focus and, crucially, very strong factual support. It is vital that candidates practice their technique for handling both source based and essay questions. To achieve the highest bands candidates need to write full answers, ensuring that they have an introduction and conclusion and that each paragraph focuses on answering the question posed. Large tracts of pure narrative will not be highly rewarded. Comments on specific questions Section A Question 1 The source based question asked the candidates to examine and interpret five sources and answer a question based on the General Election of May Almost all responses showed that there were two viewpoints that could be taken from the sources. They were able to identify evidence from the sources to both support and challenge the hypothesis. The majority of candidates also realised that they must go further than simply relating content, but also evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the sources. This means assessing the reliability of the sources by considering their provenance, using contextual knowledge and cross referencing to other sources to decide whether the hypothesis can be supported by the evidence. The best responses offered an overall evaluation of the sources and a summative conclusion. Candidates must either look at which sources are preferred and why, or offer and alternative hypothesis and support this proposal. To achieve the highest levels requires both an understanding of the sources and also good examination technique. Evaluation can be achieved by both a study of the nature, origin and purpose of the sources and also by contextual knowledge, or indeed both. Candidates should also be aware that writing a statement such as Source B is biased is an unsupported assertion if this claim is not backed up by detailed reference to the source. It is also necessary to consider how this bias affects the value of the source when considering the hypothesis in the question. Many candidates identified contrasts between the sources. A smaller, but significant number offered some evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses. Some weaker responses might have been improved if they had looked beyond a face value interpretation of the sources and considered their origins in more detail. 10

11 Section B Question 2 In this question candidates assessed the motivation behind the establishment of colonial rule in the period 1870 to The best responses were analytical throughout, maintaining a clear focus on the question and supporting their arguments with appropriate detail. Many responses showed good awareness of strategic and political factors and mentioned that British possession of Labuan and Singapore had a strategic dimension. Likewise candidates were aware that the French occupation of Indo-China was motivated by a desire to avenge defeat in the Franco-Prussian War as part of a strategy to regain national prestige. There were detailed discussions of the British decisions to establish residencies in the Malay States and to acquire Upper Burma as an attempt to stabilise the eastern borderlands of the British Indian Empire. US acquisition of the Philippines in 1898 as a result of the Spanish American War was also primarily strategic and political and this was frequently mentioned. In terms of economic motivation candidates mentioned British involvement in the Malay States which led to the creation of the Residency system and consolidated trade and economic interests in the Malay Peninsula. It was also recognised that the Dutch, in the East Indies, were also primarily motivated by trade and economic factors. The majority of responses were well informed and addressed a range of issues. Most candidates were able to support their points with relevant detail. Weaker responses, although often well-informed were sometimes too descriptive in approach. In order to improve candidates might organise their answers more effectively and discuss each factor in turn rather than simply listing examples. Question 3 Candidates had a great deal of information under their control and there were many knowledgeable responses. Most showed awareness that colonial rule led to the integration of Southeast Asia into the world trading network. Many examples were given, including the development of the oil industry in Lower Burma; the development of the tin and rubber industries in Peninsula Malaya; the development of rice production in Cochin China and the development of trading networks to incorporate European trade with China through Singapore and the Straits Settlements. Some also discussed the impact of new networks on Indonesian trade, through the production of rubber and the exploitation of oil. To achieve the highest bands candidates needed to look at both positive and negative aspects and a number of candidates balanced their responses by discussing the less positive elements. They explained that the colonial labour force had to work under difficult conditions. Some pointed out that the break down in traditional social and economic patterns which resulted from these changes verged on economic exploitation. Changes also led to migration and this caused social tension in areas such as Malaya and disrupted traditional patterns of economic behaviour. It was recognised that, in some areas at least, traditional trading patterns survived and candidates supported this point with knowledge of inland areas of Burma, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. A significant proportion of candidates used knowledge analytically and created a balanced and well supported response. It was necessary to come to a judgement on the to what extent element of the question. Candidates could reach their own conclusions on the balance between positive and negative impacts, so long as they explained and supported their comments. Question 4 This question was generally handled well. Many candidates wrote broadly analytical essays and a significant proportion wrote balanced answers which looked at a range of implications of urbanisation. Candidates were aware that urbanisation was mainly limited to areas linked to the international trading network and mentioned examples such as Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Malacca, Hanoi, Manila and Rangoon. Many also gave extensive detail on what actually occurred and the benefits and drawbacks of urbanisation. Candidates were aware that these areas became the major economic centres of their respective regions and led to the creation of a local colonial upper class of Europeans or Americans. Urbanisation also led to the creation of an indigenous trading class which benefited from international trade and the establishment of new industries such as tea and coffee cultivation in the East Indies, oil in Burma and tin and rubber in the Malay Peninsula. Migration was mentioned by many responses and the creation of significant Chinese communities in major urban areas such as Kuala Lumpur was often cited as an example. The more perceptive responses recognised that this led to a rise in inter-ethnic tension. A minority of candidates noted that much of inland Southeast Asia was unaffected by a move towards urbanisation. In general candidates were well informed and supported their essays with relevant detail. A small number of responses could have been improved by differentiation between positive and negative aspects and also consideration of how the impacts of urbanisation varied between different countries. 11

12 Question 5 Responses to this question highlighted that it is important that candidates have solid subject knowledge. In this session candidates tended to write about factors other than the leaders. Clearly it is important that other factors are considered but it is equally important that candidates show a real knowledge of the role of the leaders from a variety of countries. Most essays mentioned the significance of the leadership of individuals such as Ho Chi Minh in the Vietnamese nationalist movement and Sukarno and Hatta in the Dutch East Indies. A small number of candidates also mentioned Islamic based nationalist movements in the Dutch East Indies and considered the impact of Marxism on nationalist movements in French Indo-China. Candidates could have explored the impact of individual leaders, the role of ideology and other factors, such as, mass support, war and policies of the colonial powers. Examples could have been used from the Philippines, Indochina, Indonesia, Malaya and Burma. This essay showed the importance of planning to ensure that balance and analysis are both achieved. The response needed to come to a summative judgement on the role and importance of leaders in relation to ideology and other factors in the success or failure of nationalist movements. Some of the essays were too theoretical in approach and would have been improved by the inclusion of more solid subject knowledge on which to support their thesis. Question 6 There were many effective responses to this question and candidates clearly had a good knowledge of the processes of gaining independence and decolonisation. They were able to supply copious subject knowledge in support of their analysis. The majority of responses were aware that different colonial powers reacted in different ways. A large number of candidates discussed the British and Dutch plans for a major handover of power after the Second World War. In 1946 the Malayan Union was created and in 1948 the British gave independence to Burma, allowing it to leave the Commonwealth. However, the Dutch aimed to keep hold of the East Indies/Indonesia, even under a new colonial relationship. Only after US/UN pressure did the Dutch accept Indonesian independence in Other frequently mentioned examples included the Philippines where the US kept its pre-war promise of giving the islands independence in 1946, but not before assuring the rule of pro-us parties. A number of responses pointed out that the only major European state that attempted to retain its empire by force was France. The majority of candidates recognised the need to discuss a range of approaches. Nonetheless, lengthy descriptive answers did appear. Candidates should be aware that a tightly focused essay (which may well be shorter) is likely to score more highly than a lengthy, descriptive essay which lacks analytical links to the question. Question 7 The best responses were knowledgeable on the role of the military in newly-independent states. Examples from Indonesia and Thailand were well known. In Indonesia the military repressed the communist party in and replaced the Sukarno regime with Suharto. In Thailand the military took power following political and economic stability throughout the period. A small number of responses included Burma/Myanmar where the military helped preserve the unity of the state against regional separatist movements. Only a minority of responses mentioned the Philippines or Cambodia, where the tyranny of the Khmer Rouge could usefully have been examined. In order to achieve the highest bands it was necessary to directly address the How far aspect of the question and a number of candidates overlooked this entirely. Some responses would have been improved they had been able to employ a wider range of detail to support their ideas. Question 8 This question was tackled most effectively by candidates who had a clear understanding of what moves towards regional co-operation entailed and who made explicit reference to their level of success. To support the idea of co-operation candidates mentioned the creation of ASEAN in 1967 as an attempt to form an anticommunist block in Southeast Asia. Some responses considered the role of ASEAN and looked at the extent to which it represented a move from regional security to economic and political integration. The most balanced responses realised that ASEAN had only limited success between 1967 and A few candidates mentioned how British colonial and Commonwealth states co-operated to meet threat such as the Kronfrontasi in Borneo. Some of the most thoughtful answers referred to the Cambodian-Vietnam War of 1978 as an example of a lack of co-operation. Weaker responses tended to lack secure knowledge and would have been improved if candidates had been able to employ a sufficiently wide range of examples to support the general points that they raised. 12