w
w
m
e
tr
.X
w
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ap
eP
HISTORY
om
.c
s
er
Paper 9697/11
Paper 11
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 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 1870. 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 1848-49 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 1934. The best responses focused on
this timeframe while weaker ones tended to offer general surveys up to 1939. 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 1
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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1870. 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 1870-71. 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1917. 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 1934. 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 1934. 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
1934. 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1848-49 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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
1917. 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 1939. 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 1936-38 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 (1928-32, 1933-37 and
1938-42) 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 1848-49, 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1848-49 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 1848-49 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1917. 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 1914. 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
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 1959. 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section B
Question 2
In this question candidates assessed the motivation behind the establishment of colonial rule in the period
1870 to 1914. 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1949. 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
1965-1966 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 1980. 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
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/22
Paper 22
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 1959. 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.
13
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section B
Question 2
In this question candidates assessed the motivation behind the establishment of colonial rule in the period
1870 to 1914. 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.
14
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
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 1949. 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
1965-1966 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 1980. 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.
15
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/31
Paper 31
Key messages
• The most impressive responses to Section A used the sources to challenge and support the hypothesis,
interpreted them in their historical context through provenance evaluation, cross-referencing and
background knowledge and reached a supported judgement on the validity of the hypothesis.
• The most effective answers to Section B contained clear and consistent arguments which were fully
focused on the questions and based on a balanced analysis of appropriate factual material.
General comments
Many candidates maintained a consistently high standard throughout their responses, making informed
judgements based on a solid foundation of knowledge and understanding. Most demonstrated sound
knowledge in at least some of their answers, but a number were unable to sustain this across their script.
Some found it difficult to use their knowledge in an analytical manner. Weaker scripts often lacked sound
knowledge and tended towards generalised statements.
In Question 1 most candidates identified information from the sources to support and challenge the
hypothesis. They constructed arguments which were focused on the question. The most impressive
interpreted the sources through provenance evaluation, cross-referencing and background knowledge.
Many candidates were aware of the need to evaluate the sources, but were unable to achieve this
convincingly, relying on unsubstantiated assertions regarding reliability. Candidates should be aware that a
statement such as ‘Source B is biased’ needs to be explained to show how and why the source is biased
and how this affects its use for interpreting the validity of the hypothesis. Those who read the sources
carefully, noting key information on a plan before writing their response, often produced work of a high
standard. Candidates who wrote about each source in turn found it more difficult to remain focused on the
hypothesis and missed opportunities for cross-referencing. Many who adopted this approach dismissed
Source C as irrelevant because it made no mention of U Thant.
It is no coincidence that the most effective responses to Section B were preceded by a plan. The most
impressive answers presented clear and consistent arguments and were well balanced. Weaker candidates
sometimes found this difficult to achieve. For example, in Question 5, many candidates developed wellsupported arguments to show how Khrushchev might be deemed responsible for causing the Sino-Soviet
split, but did not balance this by analysing other possible causes. Some responses contained knowledge
which was not presented analytically. Others lacked sufficient factual support, in spite of showing an
awareness of the analytical demands of the question. A number of responses to Question 8 contained
either generalised comment or tried to draw general conclusions from isolated (and untypical) examples.
Likewise some responses to Question 6 demonstrated a lack of knowledge and understanding of the aims,
terms and impact of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1
Most candidates identified information in the sources to support and challenge the hypothesis and developed
a logical and balanced response to the question. Sources A and E were seen as offering the strongest
support for the view that U Thant was vital in bringing about the peaceful conclusion of the Cuban missile
crisis. According to both sources, it was U Thant’s diplomatic efforts which encouraged the USA and the
USSR to negotiate, and it was his proposal which formed the basis of the final agreement. The majority
noted the significance of Kennedy’s statement that ‘U Thant has put the world deeply in his debt’ and the
joint American/Soviet letter to U Thant (Source E) expressing ‘our appreciation for your efforts…to avert a
16
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
serious threat to peace’. Conversely, most candidates argued that Source D provides the greatest challenge
to the hypothesis. It was noted that the source is critical of U Thant’s tenure as UN Secretary-General,
suggesting that he is ‘the man who is most often blamed for the UN’s steady decline in world prestige and
power.’ The only reference in Source D to U Thant’s role in defusing the missile crisis is the implication that
the Secretary-General was weak in his negotiations with Castro regarding UN supervision of the removal of
Soviet missiles from Cuba. Many argued that Source B also revealed weaknesses in U Thant’s negotiating
skills; Castro’s aggressive tone in refusing to comply with UN requirements indicating a lack of respect for
the UN and U Thant. Perceptive candidates saw the significance of Source C - it was the USA’s resolute
reaction to Khrushchev’s decision to place nuclear weapons in Cuba, rather than the activities of U Thant,
which caused the Soviets to back down.
To achieve higher marks candidates needed to interpret the sources in their context, evaluating their
provenance and cross-referring between them to reach an analytical assessment of U Thant’s role. Most
were aware of this but attempts were not always effective. Many candidates argued that Sources A and E
provide the most convincing evidence as they were published in 2009 and 2008 respectively and have the
advantage of hindsight. Although this view has some validity, hindsight is no guarantee of reliability. The
most impressive responses appreciated that the title of the paper from which Source A is taken (‘Unsung
Mediator: U Thant and the Cuban Missile Crisis’) indicates that its focus is on the work of U Thant rather than
other factors which might have played a part in bringing the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Similarly, Source
E comes from a UN publication, which might have a vested interest in highlighting the successful
negotiations carried out by the UN Secretary-General. Similarly, many candidates argued that, as a letter
from Castro, Source B is inevitably biased. However, only a few went on to show the relevance of this to the
hypothesis. More perceptive responses realised that, although it contains the opinions of someone heavily
involved in the crisis, Source B’s reliability in addressing the hypothesis is greatly enhanced by the fact that it
is a private letter not intended for public consumption.
Although most candidates were able to see similarities in the views expressed by Sources A and E, some
opportunities for cross-referencing were missed. For example, using evidence from Sources B, D and E,
impressive responses argued that U Thant failed, at least initially, in his attempt to implement the plan for UN
supervision of the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba. Source D, it was noted, states that the plan was a
‘failure’ and even quotes a UN official suggesting that this failure might have been averted ‘if U Thant had
pressed Castro more vigorously.’ Source B reveals Castro’s refusal to permit inspections within Cuba by the
UN or ‘any organisation, national or international’. Even in Source E, which is highly complimentary of U
Thant’s efforts, there is an indication that U Thant’s negotiations with Castro were unproductive; ‘U Thant
travelled to Cuba … it gave the Cuban leaders an opportunity to let off steam.’ Some candidates argued that
the tone of Source B represents a clear example of Castro ‘letting off steam’!
A few candidates were confused by, or missed the significance of, some elements of the sources. For
example, some interpreted the second paragraph of Source A as suggesting that ‘Kennedy’s threat of force
alone had compelled the Soviets to back down’. More perceptive responses showed that Source A is
actually rejecting this notion, arguing that it was a product of the traditional, pro-American view of the Cold
War which was prevalent in the 1960s. Such responses saw Source C as an example of this, since it was
clearly written before evidence from Soviet archives became available. It was argued that the source
contains no evidence to support its claims, and consists primarily of conjecture; for example - ‘among the
factors that must have influenced Khrushchev...’; ‘American preparation doubtless had persuaded
Khrushchev’. Weaker responses missed the significance of Source C, declaring it to be irrelevant because it
did not refer to U Thant. Similarly, a lack of contextual knowledge caused some candidates to become
confused by Source B, a minority assuming that Castro was complaining about UN warplanes attacking
Cuba. More effective responses demonstrated how Source B reflects Castro’s anger, fear and frustration at
the agreement between the USA and the USSR - Soviet missiles were to be removed from Cuba and Castro
believed this would leave his country vulnerable to American attack.
Candidates who achieved the highest level evaluated the evidence on both sides of the argument, and
explained how and why the quality of the evidence differed. Most concluded that U Thant played some part
in bringing the dispute to a peaceful conclusion. It was argued that his attempts to facilitate negotiations are
clearly seen in Sources A and E, and even confirmed in Castro’s letter (Source B) which refers to
‘conciliatory efforts’. Source A’s claim that ‘Headlines… hailed U Thant for his part in de-escalating the crisis’
was perceived as a verifiable statement, as were the claims that the Russian and American governments
were appreciative of his efforts. Some claimed that the criticism of U Thant in Source D is unfair and a
reflection of the inevitable bias given the title of the paper from which it is taken. They argued that the
decline in UN prestige and credibility during the 1960s was more the result of Cold War realities than any
failure on the part of U Thant himself. Similarly, Source C’s implication that it was Kennedy’s rapid and
robust response which brought the crisis to a peaceful conclusion, rather than the actions of U Thant, was
17
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
largely discredited as a product of the traditional school of thought prevalent in the 1960s. However, the
most impressive responses argued that, despite these points, U Thant’s conciliatory efforts would not have
been effective without the willingness of the USA and the USSR to negotiate. Contextual knowledge was
used to demonstrate how brinkmanship led to a situation in which the only alternatives were nuclear war or a
compromise solution. Whereas U Thant’s diplomatic attempts clearly failed with Castro, they were more
successful with the superpowers, neither of which was prepared to risk nuclear war. Some candidates
suggested, using the evidence of letters exchanged between senior American and Soviet negotiators that a
peaceful outcome would have been reached even without U Thant’s endeavours.
Section B
Question 2
Although a few responses were entirely focused on the Berlin Blockade, most created balance by reference
to other relevant factors. Disagreements at Yalta and Potsdam, American use of the atom bomb in Japan,
aggressive Soviet activities in Eastern Europe, Churchill’s ‘iron curtain’ speech (1946), the Truman Doctrine
(1947), the Marshal Plan (1947) and the instigation of Cominform (1947) were all discussed as contributing
factors. However a number of candidates lost sight of the question, and wrote descriptive accounts of the
factors which led to increased tensions between the superpowers in the immediate post-war period. Many
candidates produced more analytical responses, but often focused on the causes of the Cold War and who
might be considered responsible, rather than on the key issue of when it started. The most impressive
responses were focused throughout, developing a consistent and balanced argument. The most common
conclusion was that, while the Berlin Blockade marked the start of the Cold War in the sense that it was
effectively the first direct confrontation between the superpowers, it was actually a symptom of tensions
which already existed prior to 1948. Some argued that Churchill’s speech provided clear evidence that the
Cold War had already started as early as 1946, while others claimed that the Truman Doctrine of 1947 was,
in effect, an American declaration of war against the Soviet Union.
Question 3
Most responses demonstrated sound knowledge of how the Cold War became globalised in the period
between 1950 and 1980. A number presented narrative accounts of superpower involvement in some of the
conflict areas, most notably Korea, Cuba and Vietnam, but also Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.
The implicit assumption was that these events were connected by superpower rivalry, but analysis was often
restricted to addressing the rather different question of whether the USA or the USSR was most responsible
for spreading Cold War tensions around the world. Notwithstanding the wording of the question, some
candidates wrote about events in Europe, usually concentrating on issues which took place prior to 1950.
The most effective responses were characterised by more balanced arguments which attempted to show
how superpower rivalry was effectively superimposed on conflicts, each of which was essentially regional in
origin. The Korean War, for example, was generally seen as a civil war, the product of decolonisation and
the desire for unification and nationalism, rather than a fight between capitalism and communism. It was
argued that it became a Cold War conflict because of the motives of the superpowers, rather than the
aspirations of the Korean people.
Question 4
In general candidates possessed sound knowledge of this topic, although a minority were confused between
the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Although some responses were confined to descriptive accounts of the war
the majority provided detailed explanations of why the USA suffered defeat in Vietnam, leading to the
conclusion that American involvement had been a ‘terrible mistake’. Such responses tended to lack balance.
More effective essays argued that, while it is clear in hindsight that American involvement proved to be a
disaster, there were clear reasons why the USA felt it had to become involved. Many candidates were aware
of the USA’s need to protect her economic interests, which seemed to be threatened by communist
expansionism in Asia. They considered the negative impact which refusal to support South Vietnam would
have had on American international prestige and the effect of domestic public pressure, which only later
turned against involvement in Vietnam. The most impressive responses argued that only after the USA had
become embroiled in the war did it become clear that victory would be almost impossible. Candidates
recognised that at the same time losing would have been unthinkable. This, it was argued, explains why the
USA had no alternative but to escalate their involvement under Johnson, with such devastating outcomes. It
was this ability to apply detailed factual knowledge to develop a balanced and focused argument which
characterised responses of the highest quality. Sometimes reference to whether this involvement was ‘a
terrible mistake’ tended to be implicit. Indeed, many candidates seemed to be answering the rather different
question of why the USA lost the Vietnam War.
18
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 5
The majority of candidates displayed some understanding of the causes of the Sino-Soviet split, although
responses to this question were of variable quality. The most effective provided arguments which were
analytical and balanced throughout. While demonstrating that many of Khrushchev’s actions caused offence
to the Chinese, they also referred to Mao’s own responsibility for the deteriorating relationship between the
two regimes. Other factors which were beyond the control of either leader, such as on-going border
disputes, were also considered in some responses. Weaker answers characteristically lacked balance,
concentrating almost exclusively on how Khrushchev might be held responsible, with little or no reference to
alternative factors. Many candidates described the causes of the Sino-Soviet split with no attempt to analyse
the extent to which Khrushchev, or anyone else, might be held accountable. The weakest responses often
contained significant factual errors or assertions which were not supported by adequate evidence.
Question 6
Some candidates produced high quality essays, using detailed knowledge of the aims and terms of the
Treaty itself as criteria for evaluating its overall effectiveness. Such essays developed focused, balanced
arguments, supported by appropriate factual material. A considerable proportion of answers were based on
a very basic understanding of the Treaty, leading to the excessive use of vague comments with inadequate
support. A number of responses would have been improved by offering a clear distinction between
proliferation and control. In weaker responses there was some evidence of confusion between the NPT and
other treaties, such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A surprising number wrote about the arms race in
general, with no reference to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or any other attempt to impose controls
upon it. Many drifted into lengthy accounts of the SALT Treaties - of limited relevance to the question. The
weakest candidates lacked sufficient knowledge of the aims and effectiveness of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty to produce a viable response.
Question 7
A few candidates produced relevant and balanced essays, demonstrating how the USA’s dominance of the
international economy fluctuated within the time period and discussing the reasons why this occurred. A
number of responses, however, demonstrated some confusion over the demands of the question. These
candidates based their essays on the assumption that this was a Cold War issue and focused on an
explanation of why the USA played a bigger role than the Soviet Union in the development of the
international economy. Others based their entire response on the initial post-WWII era, confining their
assessment to the impact of the Marshall Plan. The weakest candidates lacked the specific knowledge
required to address this question effectively.
Question 8
Responses were of variable quality. The most effective were characterised by focused and balanced
arguments, supported by appropriate evidence in the form of relevant and detailed examples. The majority
of responses, however, tended to be unbalanced since there was a marked absence of evidence which
might be used to argue against the statement in the question. This problem was especially evident when
candidates based their entire response on the post-decolonisation experiences of one particular country.
The weakest responses consisted of vague assertions with little or no supporting factual content.
19
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/32
Paper 32
Key messages
•
•
The most impressive responses to the source-based question in Section A used the sources to
challenge and support the hypothesis, interpreted them in their historical context through provenance
evaluation, cross-referencing and background knowledge and reached a supported judgement on the
validity of the hypothesis.
The best answers to Section B contained clear and consistent arguments which were focused on the
requirements of the questions and based on a balanced analysis of appropriate factual material.
General comments
Many candidates achieved a consistently high standard in all of their responses, making informed historical
judgements based on a solid foundation of knowledge and understanding. Most demonstrated sound
knowledge in at least some of their answers, but were unable to sustain this across all four responses. A
number found it difficult to use their knowledge in a focused and analytical manner. Weaker scripts often
tended towards generalised statements.
In Question 1 most candidates identified relevant information and constructed a focused argument. The
most impressive interpreted the sources in their historical context. Many candidates were aware of the need
to evaluate the sources, but were unable to achieve this convincingly, relying on vague comments about
reliability. Statements such as ‘Source A is biased’ require supporting evidence to demonstrate how and
why the source is biased. Consideration of how this affects its use for interpreting the validity of the
hypothesis is also necessary. Those who had read the sources carefully, recording relevant ideas on a plan,
before writing their response often produced work of a high standard. They understood both sides of the
argument, ensuring that answers were balanced and focused throughout. Candidates who wrote about each
source in turn often found it more difficult to remain focused on the hypothesis and missed opportunities for
cross-referencing. Three features of the sources confused some candidates. The bias and sarcasm of
Source C was sometimes missed. As a result, many interpreted the source as blaming the USA for failing to
respond to North Vietnam’s offers of peace. Candidates need to take special care when analysing sources
which contain the views of (or quotes from) other sources. Many argued that Source D was reliable because
it came from an American newspaper which was critical of American bombing raids. In fact, Source D
quotes the views of other sources and does not offer its own interpretation. A relatively large number of
candidates assumed that the peace proposals mentioned in Source C were the same as those described in
Source E. This often led to the assertion that these sources disagreed about responses to the proposals.
Some needed to look more carefully at the provenance of each source - that the sources refer to two
different peace proposals is evident from the fact that one is dated December 1966, and the other March
1967.
Often the most effective responses to Section B were preceded by a plan. A large number contained
appropriate and accurate factual material but some did not use this to address the questions; many
responses to Question 2 adopting a narrative approach, recounting the causes of the Cold War up to 1949.
Similarly, many responses to Question 4 provided narrative accounts of the Korean War rather than
comparative analysis of the involvement of the USA and USSR. Most essays contained appropriate
features, but some appeared disjointed. In order to be effective, an argument needs to be clear, consistent
and logical. Some weaker essays might have been better balanced, as in Question 5, where many
candidates developed well-supported arguments on the impact of Gorbachev’s reforms, but did not balance
this by analysing other factors. Other responses contained potentially relevant arguments, but lacked
sufficient factual support (see comments on Question 8). The weakest responses would have been
improved by more secure knowledge, for example a number of responses to Question 6 lacked knowledge
and understanding of the aims, terms and impact of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
20
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1
Most candidates identified information to support and challenge the hypothesis and develop a balanced
response to the question. Source D was often seen as providing the strongest support for the view that the
USA was responsible for the UN’s failure to secure a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam War in the 1965-7
period. The extremely hostile reaction to the American bombing of the Hanoi area, from China, the Soviet
Union and the Vietcong, destroyed any hope of extending ‘the Christmas and New Year truces into a
prolonged ceasefire.’ UN Secretary-General U Thant was concerned that the provocative actions of the USA
would escalate the situation into ‘a wider war with dangerous consequences.’ Source B was commonly seen
as adding further support to the hypothesis; President Johnson is depicted as aggressive and unwilling to
compromise with either China or the UN. Conversely, Source E was seen as challenging the hypothesis. It
was North Vietnam, rather than the USA, which rejected the three-stage peace plan proposed by U Thant.
The majority of candidates argued that Source A also challenges the hypothesis since it lays the blame for
the war on the aggressive actions of North Vietnam in attacking ‘the independent nation of South Vietnam’
with the aim of ‘total conquest.’ It was noted that Source A does not refer to any action taken by the USA
which might have hindered UN attempts to negotiate peace, and is heavily critical of Communist China for
urging on North Vietnam as ‘part of a wider pattern of China’s aggressive purposes.’ Source C was
interpreted in many different ways. Some candidates argued that it supports the hypothesis because of U
Thant’s claim that ‘the USA has killed three peace offers from Hanoi’, others felt that it was blaming the UN
itself for failing to negotiate a settlement, primarily because its Secretary-General was not ‘a trustworthy and
effective catalyst for peace.’
To achieve higher marks candidates were required to interpret the sources in context, evaluate their
provenance and cross-refer between them to assess the validity of the hypothesis. It was the lack of such
analysis which led to confusion about Source C. The statements that ‘it is obviously all Washington’s fault
that a war is still going on in Vietnam’ and ‘President Johnson is a warmonger’ were frequently seen as
evidence in support of the hypothesis. More effective responses recognised the sarcasm which runs through
Source C. It belittles the notion that North Vietnam genuinely sought peace, claiming that any such offers
would have been made out of self interest and ‘the communists’ well-known reputation as international liars’.
The source is heavily critical of U Thant, referring to him as ‘this sanctimonious fraud’ and implying that he is
both anti-American and a supporter of communism. The most impressive evaluations of Source C argued
that, as an article in an American newspaper, it is heavily biased in favour of the actions taken by the USA in
Vietnam, is extremely anti-communist and strongly disputes U Thant’s ‘implied premise’ that ‘President
Johnson is a warmonger.’ This, it was argued, made the source unreliable. However the source
inadvertently reveals that U Thant did have such concerns in December 1966, confirmed by his reaction to
the American bombing of the Hanoi area, seen in Source D.
Most candidates recognised the need to evaluate the sources but their attempts were not always convincing.
For example, many argued that Source D, despite being an extract from an American newspaper, is heavily
critical of the USA’s bombing of Hanoi, believing it would lead to an escalation of the war. More analytical
responses noted that Source D reports the views of other sources without developing its own interpretation.
Some perceptive candidates suggested that the reaction to the American bombing of Hanoi might be
described as excessive, noting Pravda’s allegation that it ‘amounted to genocide’. They argued that such a
reaction might imply that America’s enemies were themselves unwilling to agree to a peace settlement. For
example, the editorial in the Peking ‘People’s Daily’ ‘warning that China would not tolerate a defeat of North
Vietnam’ (Source D) was commonly cross-referenced with the statement in Source E that ‘from Hanoi’s point
of view, there is no need to accept a peace short of victory’ because ‘Hanoi is confident that the USSR and
China will not let her down.’ Many candidates supported this line of argument by showing how Pravda was
convinced that ‘the Pentagon generals are losing their tempers at their failure to win the war’ (Source D).
The majority noted that Source A is effectively President Johnson’s justification for American involvement in
Vietnam and is heavily biased. The best responses provided examples of this, usually referring to the anticommunist tone (‘the new face of an old enemy’) and the attempt to discredit China. The USA, it was noted,
is portrayed as defending the integrity of ‘the independent state of South Vietnam’ and supporting the UN in
its condemnation of China. This was frequently linked with Source B, in which Johnson is depicted wearing
a sheriff’s badge, a reference to the USA’s perceived role as the ‘policeman of the world’ and with Source C,
which mentions the ‘frailty of the Saigon regime we support’. Contextual knowledge was used to show that
the USA also had other motives for involvement in the Vietnam War.
21
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
The best candidates explained the significance of President Johnson being drawn considerably larger than U
Thant in Source B. They argued that the cartoon implies that the UN had little power and was largely
controlled by the USA. Knowledge of the USA blocking Communist China’s membership of the UN for many
years was used to support this. Many noted the irony implicit in the cartoon; Johnson is shown fully armed
with a bomb labelled ‘Vietnam’ while claiming that China ‘is not peace loving’. Although the USA apologised
for its attack on North Vietnam in September 1965, it had resumed bombing raids by December 1966, as
evidenced by Source D.
Many argued that Source E challenges the hypothesis because it shows the USA’s willingness to negotiate a
peace settlement. North Vietnam, convinced that victory was in sight, was seen as unwilling to negotiate, not
wanting to ‘accept a peace short of victory’. More perceptive candidates argued that, because the USA was
seen in the ‘unfamiliar’ role of peace advocate, there was an implication that the USA had resisted earlier
negotiations. Further confirmation of this was found in Sources B, C and D. The fact that ‘there are some
sceptics’ was also seen as suggesting that not everyone was convinced by the USA’s apparent willingness
to negotiate. A number of highly analytical responses also pointed out that, in accepting U Thant’s
proposals, the USA was not committing itself to anything other than a ceasefire and subsequent
negotiations.
Candidates who achieved the highest level did so by evaluating the evidence on both sides of the argument,
and explaining how and why the quality of the evidence differed. The most common conclusion was that the
UN was in an impossible situation since neither side was prepared to back down. Convinced that there was
a communist expansionist plot, and concerned about the impact of defeat on economic interests and
international prestige, the USA was determined to stand firm in Vietnam. North Vietnam believed that the
USSR and China would not let her down and was determined to continue the war until the USA was either
defeated or sufficiently humiliated.
Section B
Question 2
Most candidates had an impressive knowledge of the events in Europe from 1945 to 1949 which mark the
early development of the Cold War. The best responses were analytical throughout, characterised by
arguments which were balanced and focused on the question. A number of candidates were unable to resist
the temptation to write more generally about the causes of the Cold War, and who might be held responsible
for its development. Such responses contained descriptive passages (often in considerable detail) which,
while relevant and accurate, were only implicitly focused on the question. For example, many candidates
wrote at length about the historical debate surrounding the onset of the Cold War; most demonstrated good
understanding of the various viewpoints, few reached conclusions about which might be preferred, and fewer
still showed how this debate relates to the question. The weakest responses, of which there were relatively
few, consisted largely of assertions (such as ‘it is obvious that Stalin was responsible for causing the Cold
War’) with limited support.
Question 3
Although most candidates understood how the Cold War became globalised in the 1950s and 1960s, they
often presented narrative accounts (with varying levels of detail and accuracy) of the Korean War and the
Cuban missile crisis. A common weakness was a lack of balance, candidates providing plenty of evidence to
support the hypothesis, but very little to challenge it. It was widely assumed that, in deciding to place nuclear
weapons in Cuba, Khrushchev had no other motive than Soviet expansion into an American sphere of
influence. A number of candidates asserted that Stalin had ordered North Korea to invade its southern
neighbour, claiming that this is led to American involvement in the Korean War and therefore the
globalisation of the Cold War into SE Asia. More effective responses were characterised by greater
analytical depth and a more balanced approach. The least impressive responses were often the result of
failure to adhere to the timeframe established by the question. Many candidates wrote at length about what
they perceived as Soviet expansionism into Eastern Europe during the 1945-9 period, while others wrote
about events long after the 1960s (such as Soviet involvement in Afghanistan).
22
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 4
Most candidates possessed detailed and accurate knowledge about the Korean War. The best responses
were focused throughout, comparing the motives and actions of the USA and the USSR. A number of
candidates confined their answers to narrative accounts of the war. These were usually accurate and
detailed but invariably made little attempt to focus on the question. Because America was directly involved in
the war and the Soviet Union was not, such an approach created a sense of imbalance. A number of
responses said little about the Soviet Union beyond the fact that she supplied North Korea with military
equipment. Indeed, in many cases, more was written about the role of China. The most effective responses
came from candidates who appreciated the need to analyse why the USA chose to become directly involved
in the Korean War while the USSR did not. A significant proportion of candidates were more concerned with
demonstrating their knowledge than with concentrating on the requirements of the question.
Question 5
The majority of candidates possessed sound knowledge of the factors which led to the disintegration of the
USSR by 1991. The most impressive responses considered Gorbachev’s reforms in their wider context,
demonstrating how he sought to address longer-term problems such as economic stagnation, nationalism
and the burden of sustaining the arms race, especially when confronted with its escalation by Reagan. Such
responses generally concluded that these factors made the collapse of the USSR unavoidable, and that
Gorbachev’s reforms merely acted as a catalyst.
Less focused responses listed factors without
demonstrating how they related to each other and, sometimes, without evaluating the relative significance of
Gorbachev’s reforms. Weaker responses often described reforms, without explaining motives and making
no reference to other factors. Such essays sometimes lacked balance as they often made the assumption
that Gorbachev was responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union. In particular, too little evidence was
provided to confirm the adverse effects of his policies. Although most candidates had some knowledge
about glasnost and perestroika, relatively few explained the reasons for Gorbachev’s decision to rescind the
Brezhnev Doctrine or considered the impact this had.
Question 6
Some candidates produced very high quality essays, showing detailed knowledge of the aims, terms and
degree of success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These were characterised by balanced and
consistent arguments which were focused on the question. A surprisingly large number of candidates used
this question as an opportunity to write about the arms race in general, often with limited reference to the
Treaty or the hypothesis in the question. Many responses, while making vague comments about the impact
of the NNPT, concentrated on the terms of other treaties, such as SALT I and SALT II, without showing how
this was relevant. A number of weaker answers would have benefited by making a clear distinction between
the terms proliferation and control.
Question 7
Most responses displayed secure, detailed knowledge about the factors which explain Japan’s impressive
economic resurgence after the Second World War. The most effective were based on a clear understanding
of the importance of external and internal factors, together with an analysis of their relative significance. The
most common conclusion was that external factors, particularly American assistance (such as preferential
trading agreements), were vital for Japan’s initial post-war recovery, but that it was internal factors which
enabled Japan to fully exploit the opportunity which this provided. Weaker responses were often confined to
descriptive accounts of the various reasons why the Japanese economy grew so rapidly, with little attempt to
differentiate between internal and external factors. Such responses would have been improved by more
direct links to the question. The weakest responses, of which there were few, were based on inadequate
knowledge.
Question 8
The most effective essays were characterised by focused and balanced arguments, supported by
appropriate factual evidence in the form of relevant examples. A number of responses were rather
unbalanced since there was a marked absence of any evidence which might be used to argue against the
statement in the question. This problem was especially evident when candidates based their entire response
on the post-decolonisation experiences of just one country. The weakest responses consisted of vague
assertions with limited factual content.
23
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/33
Paper 33
Key messages
•
•
The most impressive responses to Section A used the sources to challenge and support the hypothesis,
interpreted them in their historical context through provenance evaluation, cross-referencing and
background knowledge and reached a supported judgement on the validity of the hypothesis.
The best responses to Section B contained clear and consistent arguments which were focused on the
requirements of the questions and based on a balanced analysis of appropriate factual material.
General comments
Many candidates achieved consistently high standards throughout their scripts, making informed judgements
based on a solid foundation of knowledge and understanding. Most demonstrated a sound grasp of detail in
at least some of their answers, but a number were unable to sustain this. Some found it difficult to use their
knowledge in a focused and analytical manner to address the questions. Weaker scripts tended to consist of
generalised comments and would have been improved by the inclusion of secure and relevant knowledge.
In response to Question 1 most candidates identified information from the sources to support and challenge
the hypothesis and constructed a logical argument. The most impressive responses analysed the sources
through provenance evaluation, cross-referencing and appropriate knowledge. Many candidates recognised
the need to evaluate the sources but were unable to achieve this convincingly, relying on vague assertions
regarding reliability. A statement such as ‘Source B is biased’ requires supporting evidence. It is also
necessary to consider how this affects its use for interpreting the validity of the hypothesis. For example, a
large number of candidates, recognising the potential for bias in Sources B and D, dismissed both as
unreliable. The most successful candidates read the sources carefully, recording relevant information on a
structured plan, before beginning their response. They ensured that their answers were balanced and
focused throughout. Candidates who wrote about each source in turn found it more difficult to focus on the
hypothesis and missed opportunities for cross-referencing.
In Section B the most impressive responses contained consistent arguments which were focused on the
question and based on a balanced analysis of appropriate material. It is no coincidence that most such
responses were preceded by a plan. A number of candidates demonstrated a sound grasp of relevant
material but did not use it to address the question, as was the case in Question 2. Some responses,
otherwise containing sound knowledge, were weakened by a lack of structure and a number were
significantly unbalanced. For instance many candidates developed well-supported arguments but only
considered one aspect of Question 4. A number of responses contained potentially relevant arguments, but
lacked sufficient factual support. A number of weaker responses, to Question 6 for example, would have
been improved by the inclusion of more relevant, accurate material.
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1
Most candidates identified information to support and challenge the hypothesis and developed a logical,
balanced response. Sources A, C and E were generally seen as supporting the hypothesis. The British
Foreign Secretary (Source A) believed that UNEF was vital in keeping down tensions in the Middle East and
that to withdraw it would be a threat to peace and would undermine UN credibility. A similar argument was
noted in Source C, which quotes the New York Times likening UNEF to ‘a fire brigade which vanishes from
the scene as soon as the first flames appear’ and concludes with the opinion of another British politician that
‘the credibility of the UN itself was gravely damaged by the withdrawal of UNEF.’ The statement in Source E
that ‘the decline of the UN’s peacekeeping as a serious international force may have begun with UNEF’s
24
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
abandonment of its mission’ was seen as further evidence of U Thant’s serious error of judgement. Sources
B and D were seen as challenging the hypothesis through their claims that UNEF was neither strong enough
nor had the authority to prevent an escalation of violence in the Middle East.
To achieve high marks candidates needed to interpret the sources in context, evaluate their provenance and
cross-refer between them to reach an assessment of U Thant’s decision. Attempts to do this were not
always convincing. For example, most candidates claimed that Source B must be biased as it is U Thant’s
justification for his decision. Similarly, Source D is also biased as it was written by U Thant’s Senior Adviser.
On this basis many dismissed Sources B and D as unreliable. The most impressive responses used
contextual knowledge and cross-referencing to test whether the claims made by U Thant and Urquhart can
be considered valid. Various arguments were put forward to demonstrate that U Thant’s viewpoint can be
justified. Many noted that he was addressing the UN Security Council in Source B, an audience which was
unlikely to be deceived by any inaccurate statements which the Secretary-General might make. The
accuracy of U Thant’s statement that ‘UN peacekeeping operations such as UNEF depend… good will of the
authorities in their area’ was confirmed by reference to the principles of the UN Charter. It follows that
Source D’s assertion that ‘Nasser had the right to demand UNEF’s withdrawal; it was his territory’ is valid.
Candidates demonstrated that U Thant was correct in his assessment that UNEF had been ‘rendered
useless’ even before he made the decision to remove it. The mobilisation of Egyptian troops and their lack
of cooperation not only prevented UNEF from carrying out its task, but also put its troops in danger. This
view is supported by Source D, which mentions Yugoslavia and India withdrawing their troops prior to U
Thant’s decision. The fact that Source C also backs up U Thant’s argument was seen as evidence to
confirm the reliability of his statement. A few responses noted the irony in Source D that Canada joined
Britain and America in condemning U Thant’s decision, yet had already withdrawn their own members of
UNEF. Those who analysed Sources B and D in such depth produced the most impressive responses.
Similar analysis was required to evaluate Sources A, C and E. If U Thant was accurate in his assessment
that withdrawal was unavoidable, how can the criticism to which he was subjected be explained? Most
candidates stated that Source A supports the hypothesis, both because of the adverse impact of U Thant’s
decision on the credibility of the UN and because the decision was made without full consultation. The best
th
responses demonstrated the significance of Source A, pointing out that the speech was made on 18 May,
before U Thant had made his decision – the source therefore cannot be critical of that decision. That the
speaker predicts U Thant’s decision was seen by some as confirmation of the fact that he had no alternative.
A full consultation process, it was argued, would take time, during which UNEF troops would remain
vulnerable. Source A was seen as being more critical of UN peacekeeping procedures than of U Thant.
The same frustration was seen in Sources C and E, though both are more critical of U Thant’s decision.
Most candidates argued that it is implicit in both sources that U Thant gave in to pressure from Nasser and
that his decision led to a war which could have been prevented. That UNEF had been effective in keeping
tensions under control is suggested by Sources A and E, and confirmed by U Thant in Source B. Many
candidates argued that this supports the view that U Thant failed to see the potential outcome of his
decision. The most analytical responses showed that U Thant was aware of the impending war in the Middle
East, quoting Source B to support this point. Many argued that Nasser had decided to achieve ‘the final
liquidation of Israel’ and would have done so regardless of UNEF. The fact that Nasser closed the Gulf of
Aqaba while U Thant was on his way to negotiate with him, was seen as evidence of the low esteem in which
Nasser held the UN, and also of his determination to go to war regardless. Nevertheless, many candidates
concluded that U Thant was guilty of a fatal error of judgement when he ordered the withdrawal of UNEF.
They argued that the majority of sources support this view, that the challenge sources (B and D) are biased
and that Source E is the most reliable because it was written with the advantage of hindsight and no obvious
motive for bias. More effective responses pointed out that Source E is rather opinionated, in particular
mentioning the statement ‘unfortunately, the UN Secretary-General believed that the UN could not maintain
itself on the Egyptian border…’. Such responses used contextual knowledge to demonstrate that U Thant
was correct in this assessment. Some candidates also argued that the preservation of peace up to1967 was
largely due to the Arab League not being in a position to go to war with Israel, rather than because of UNEF.
Candidates who achieved the highest level evaluated evidence on both sides of the argument and explained
how and why the quality of the evidence differed. The most common conclusion was that U Thant was not
guilty of a ‘fatal error of judgement’ because he had no alternative. Constrained by the principles of the UN,
the terms agreed on the establishment of UNEF and Nasser’s determination to go to war with Israel, he took
the only option available. Many candidates suggested a revised hypothesis along the lines of ‘U Thant had
no alternative but to withdraw UNEF in May 1967.’ Some argued that U Thant was aware of the criticism he
was likely to receive, which explains the defensive tone of his address to the Security Council. A few took
this line of argument further, suggesting that Source D reflects a certain amount of anger on the part of
Urquhart at the unfair criticism levelled at U Thant.
25
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section B
Question 2
The majority of candidates possessed sound knowledge of the factors which led to the development of the
Cold War in the immediate post-WWII era. The most impressive responses were analytical throughout,
characterised by the development of balanced and focused arguments. A number were unable to resist the
temptation to write more generally about the causes of the Cold War, and who might be held responsible. As
a result, their responses comprised descriptive passages (often in considerable detail) which, while relevant
and accurate, were only implicitly focused on the question. For example, many candidates wrote at great
length about the historical debate regarding the onset of the Cold War; while most were able to demonstrate
good understanding of the viewpoints expressed, few showed how the debate relates to the political and
economic devastation of Europe at the end of WWII. Candidates need to be aware that what is being tested
is not simply knowledge, but rather the ability to apply knowledge in order to support a balanced and
consistent argument which addresses the question. The weakest responses, of which there were few,
consisted largely of generalised assertions with limited support.
Question 3
There were a number of exceptional responses, characterised by analytical depth and balanced arguments,
which considered not only the strategic, political and economic motives of the superpowers, but also the
regional nature of Cold War conflicts and the impact of wider issues such as decolonisation. Although most
candidates demonstrated sound knowledge of how the Cold War became globalised in the period between
1950 and 1980, this often took the form of narrative accounts of superpower involvement in some of the
conflict areas (most notably Korea, Cuba and Vietnam, but also Latin America, Africa and the Middle East).
Unfocused coverage of each conflict was commonly followed by a statement to indicate whether the USA or
the USSR should be held most accountable for it. While such statements may have had an implicit
relevance, they were generally not focused on the hypothesis in the question. Many responses were based
on the assumption that the USA’s involvement in these regional conflicts was due entirely to its fear of
communism; only rarely were attempts made to explain why the USA might have been afraid of communism
and other possible motives were largely ignored. The least impressive responses consisted of vague
comments and would have been improved with more detailed factual support.
Question 4
Most candidates possessed detailed and accurate knowledge about the Cuban missile crisis. The most
impressive essays fully appreciated the need to identify exactly what the ‘gamble’ was. As a result, they
began with an in-depth analysis of Khrushchev’s possible motives for placing nuclear weapons in Cuba,
often demonstrating a clear understanding of Khrushchev’s view that there was a significant imbalance in the
arms race. This approach established criteria with which to evaluate whether the gamble can be deemed to
have failed. Some responses lacked such analytical depth and were based on a descriptive account of the
crisis itself, often followed by the conclusion that the ‘gamble’ failed because Khrushchev was forced to
remove the Soviet missiles from Cuba. Nevertheless, some candidates who adopted this approach created
a sense of balance by showing how Khrushchev did at least achieve the removal of American missiles from
Turkey and a guarantee of Cuban security from American attack. A number argued that Khrushchev’s
‘gamble’ was successful because the Cuban missile crisis led to a period of detente. While this was
beneficial to both the Soviet Union and the world in general, the implication that Khrushchev had intended
this outcome is a little contrived. The weakest responses, while containing some accurate and relevant
information, were characterised by a lack of genuine understanding of the issues involved.
Question 5
Many candidates produced high quality essays which contained balanced arguments, supported by accurate
and detailed factual knowledge. The majority of responses were characterised by a largely descriptive
approach which did not address the specific demands of question. For example, while reference was made
to the various threats facing the CCP in 1980s (such as splits within the Party and the demonstrations in
Tiananmen Square), little attention was paid to the essential issue of how serious these threats actually
were. Many candidates wrote at length about Deng’s reforms and his determination to develop ‘market
socialism’ in China, but only the best demonstrated how this was relevant to the question. Some weaker
responses ignored the question and focused instead on comparing Deng’s reforms in China with those of
Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. While elements of this discussion could have been made relevant to the
issue here, it was evident that some were reproducing rehearsed essays which took no account of the
26
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
demands of this particular question. The weakest responses were characterised by a significant lack of
relevant factual content. A small number of candidates, for example, ignored the given timeframe and wrote
exclusively about China under Mao.
Question 6
The quality of responses was variable. Many candidates produced essays of extremely high quality,
developing focused, balanced arguments on a secure foundation of knowledge. As in Question 5, some
adopted a narrative approach which did not adequately address the ‘how successful’ element of the
question. Most candidates provided accurate details of the aims and terms of the various treaties which
were signed between 1949 and 1980s, but only the best assessed how effectively they controlled the
development of nuclear weapons. As a result, some essays contained unsupported assertions, such as ‘the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was effective because it banned the transfer of nuclear weapon technology
from those countries which had nuclear weapons to those countries which did not.’ Some responses
described the arms race in general and would have been improved if they had discussed attempts to control
it. Others concentrated almost exclusively on the importance of mutually assured destruction, failing to
recognise that MAD was a strategy rather than an attempt to control the development of nuclear weapons.
Some responses contained relevant information, but focused exclusively on one particular treaty (usually
SALT I). A number of candidates referred to several treaties but in a disjointed manner with little sense of
chronology or context. Weaker responses lacked the depth of factual knowledge necessary to produce a
viable response.
Question 7
A number of candidates produced relevant and balanced essays, demonstrating how the USA’s dominance
of the international economy fluctuated within the time period and explaining the reasons why this occurred.
Weaker responses generally resulted from confusion over the requirements of the question. Some
candidates based their essays on the assumption that this was a Cold War issue and focused on reasons
why the USA was able to play a bigger role than the Soviet Union in the development of the international
economy. Others based their entire response on the initial post-WWII era, confining their assessment to the
impact of the Marshall Plan. A number of candidates lacked the specific knowledge required to address this
question effectively.
Question 8
A small number of candidates exhibited the degree of factual knowledge required to address this question
effectively. Some responses were characterised by irrelevance and confusion over who the Asian Tigers
actually were, some assuming that this was a question about the economic resurgence of Japan or the
development of market socialism in China. With a few notable exceptions, candidates lacked the specific
knowledge required.
27
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/41
Paper 41
Key messages
• The most effective responses use appropriate examples to support and develop points made.
• The conclusions which gain the most credit are those which produce a supported judgement which
considers the relative significance of the factors or issues under discussion.
General comments
The scripts reflected careful preparation and the majority demonstrated sound knowledge and
understanding. Most candidates answered four questions and there was no evidence of weak final
responses or of wasting time on lengthy plans. Continuing to develop an understanding of the geography of
tropical Africa, particularly of unfamiliar areas cited in examples, is important. A commendable effort to use a
wide range of texts had been made by some candidates. It is evident that there is a developing awareness
that an historian’s opinion can be used very effectively, especially if a comparison is made with another
historian’s viewpoint. This is one of the ways candidates can show they have benefited from their reading
and gain credit.
Answers are always more focused if key words in the question have been identified. Candidates are advised
to check that they address such descriptors as two/three, and/or, West/East/Central, and with two part
questions, to address both parts. All answers benefit from the inclusion of appropriate examples and some
questions specifically ask for them. Answers which do not do what the question requires cannot reach the
highest bands. Conclusions should be more than just a summary and those which gain the most credit are
the ones which produce a judgement based on weighting and prioritising of factors previously discussed.
When asked to evaluate the importance of a particular factor, several other relevant factors should be
examined in order to reach a judgement. Maintaining a clear focus on the question throughout the response
is one of the keys to high marks and therefore it is always a good idea to check that the concluding
judgement relates directly to the question.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1
Candidates showed clear knowledge and understanding of Jaja’s role in Opobo. As the question asked for
an assessment of Jaja’s significance in two respects, a balance was needed. A number of weaker
responses might have been improved if the biographical details which they recounted had been related to
the issue of significance. The strongest responses assessed Jaja within the framework of colonial
domination. Providing details on the resistance to colonial domination by Samori, the Asante or Dahomey
was only valid if it was compared to Jaja’s opposition.
Question 2
There were some strong responses which gave consideration to both positive and negative changes.
Candidates recognised that the introduction of new crops, the development of Arab/Muslim culture, a money
economy and long distance trade routes were positive features. On the other hand the introduction of
firearms, and the ivory and slave trades were generally highlighted as negative (or disruptive) factors. The
most analytical essays showed that many of these changes had both positive and negative impacts. A
number of candidates wrote little on economic development, did not give three examples, or chose examples
which were not from Central or East Africa. Zanzibar, Tippu Tip or the Nyamwezi in Central Africa, and the
Baganda would have been good examples to choose.
28
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 3
The best responses evaluated Crowther’s importance in the wider setting of West African mission churches.
His background and also his work in Yorubaland were both well known. His significance as an inspirational
guide to African Christians was less well understood. A number of candidates thought he started his own
church – this was not so. An important part of any analysis of Crowther’s significance should have been the
changing views of European missionaries towards a black African bishop. Weaker answers contained
general information about the church in West Africa and would have been improved by analysing the extent
to which Crowther’s activities helped the church to spread.
Question 4
Many candidates wrote focused responses supported by appropriate detail, although a number included
comparisons with Tewodros and Yohannis which were unnecessary. In some instances responses to
‘weaknesses’ were rather contrived. Some candidates addressed the second part of the question by
showing how Menelik’s successes were not all due to his own strengths. Other candidates tried to show that
some of his plans were not carried out, or tried to evaluate the results of his policies. These attempts were
generally highly rewarded. Strong candidates concluded that Menelik was not a reformer, just a skilful ruler
who wanted to remain in power. A reasonable balance of strengths and weaknesses was needed to achieve
the highest mark bands.
Question 5
Most of the candidates who answered this question thought the task was to agree or disagree with the
quotation in the question, instead of seeing a contrast between the two rulers. Weaker candidates explained
how both Lewanika and Mwanga were examples of unstable rulers. Strong answers identified Mwanga as
unstable because he frequently switched allegiances or reacted savagely to events. Lewanika was
presented as being more stable because, even though he asked for British protection, this enabled the Lozi
system of government to remain in place from 1878 until 1900. As a general guideline, questions asking
about two individuals will invite some form of contrast.
Question 6
Most candidates offered a detailed account of Ndebele and Shona grievances, which they attributed, with
strong argument, to one of the sides of the debate. Relatively few candidates recognised that most factors
had points on each side and so could be interpreted differently. This feature tended to form the basis of the
strongest analysis. A good understanding of the ‘post-pacification’ theory was essential to achieving the
highest level. Some candidates spent too long writing about Lobengula and the 1893 rising, without
developing a sufficiently clear focus on 1897. Another useful approach to this question was to classify the
grievances as ‘long-term’, ‘immediate’, or ‘triggers’ and some candidates employed this to very good effect,
writing clearly differentiated responses.
Question 7
Candidates were expected to make a clear choice and select either West or East Africa. One possible
approach was to explain general considerations first and then give examples from the chosen area. A more
effective technique, employed by a number of candidates, was to select the people or churches from their
chosen area and incorporate reasons for growth as they developed their analysis. Candidates who used
examples from both West and East were only credited for the stronger half. Where a candidate clearly
specified one area and gave examples from another, the examples were rendered invalid and the answer
could not achieve beyond Band 5. Although some candidates showed sound knowledge of the lives of
independent African church leaders, such as Majola Agbebi in West Africa or John Chilembwe in East Africa,
they weakened their response if they did not link this information to the question.
Question 8
This question on colonial economies was focused on East Africa. Stronger candidates chose examples from
the German, British or Portuguese East African colonial economies. General points about German policy
were well explained using the example of Tanganyika. British and Portuguese policies were sometimes less
effectively illustrated. There were few specific details of the Uganda cotton programme, the Kenya-Uganda
railway or examples from Mozambique. Most candidates rightly concluded that some development was
29
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
made, but this was incidental to exploitation by the colonial powers. Weaker candidates often chose
Ethiopia, the Congo, Angola or French economic policy, none of which were relevant.
Question 9
Most candidates were able to find a balance between factors within the correct geographical area, although
some weaker candidates wrote more generally about Islam. Stronger answers showed an understanding of
how the colonial infrastructure facilitated the spread of Islam. Most candidates were aware of the appeal of
Islam to Africans. Differentiation was rarely made between the coastal sections of West African where
Christianity spread more rapidly and the interior where Islamic brotherhoods, reforming jihads and labour
migrations assisted Islam’s more rapid growth. It was encouraging to note that many candidates gave
specific examples to support these last points.
Question 10
Responses to this question generally reflected secure knowledge and understanding. The strongest
answers explained clearly why assimilation was abandoned. Many candidates named the four communes
and understood how these were different from other French colonies. Similarities and differences between
association and indirect rule were explained more clearly than has been seen previously. Lugard’s policy in
northern Nigeria was often used as a basis for comparison with association. Most candidates also
understood the contrasting uses of the educated elite. To achieve the highest level it was necessary to
provide detailed analysis of both parts of the question, together with specific developed examples. Where no
examples were given it was not possible to access the highest bands.
30
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/51
Paper 51
Key Messages and General Comments
The vast majority of candidates met the requirements of the examination by answering three essay questions
as well as the compulsory source-based question. Marks awarded for the essays were generally higher than
those awarded for answers to Question 1. Some candidates struggled with source evaluation, spending
too long describing what the sources said, which left little time for the all-important evaluation. They would
have improved their responses by giving a brief descriptive summary of the sources before moving quickly
on to evaluation. The main improvement that could be made to essays would be a sharper focus on the
question as actually set. Though many candidates do so, there are others who write about the topic in
general, rather than focus on the specific question set on some aspect of that topic. The question must be
answered by use of relevant evidence. Given the difference between Question 1 marks and essay marks,
however, candidates can most easily improve their overall performances by practising the use of evaluation
skills for Question 1. Making valid, evaluative comments on some of the sources found in Question 1
would improve the performances of many candidates.
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1 Source-based Question: The Growth of Sectional Antagonism, 1858-1861
‘The North was to blame for the growth of sectional antagonism between 1858 and 1861.’ Using
sources A-E, discuss how far the evidence supports this assertion.
The set of five sources included one which clearly supported the assertion: Source B was from a Southern
newspaper and was published just after the 1860 presidential election. The set also contained one source
which clearly opposed the assertion: Source E, a speech made by a Northern Congressman several weeks
after the 1860 election. Each of the remaining three sources was less clear-cut in allocating blame, and
some candidates found the interpretation of these sources a challenge. For example, Source A, from
Democratic Senator Douglas, neither mentioned sectional antagonism directly, nor blamed the North, but it
could be evaluated and used in response to the hypothesis (see comments below). Source C is a cautious,
complicated statement from a leading Southerner, again after the 1860 election, which hopes for conflict
resolution within the USA. Source D, from a leading Northerner, could be interpreted in two distinct ways:
the author’s argument that civil war is inevitable means the North is not to blame, or the author’s emotional
attack on slavery, which could well have provoked antagonism, meaning the North is to blame. Better
candidates adopted this two-sided approach. On the surface, the set of sources might be seen as evenly
balanced: Source B and one interpretation of Source D are in favour while Source E and another
interpretation of D are against. Sources A and C are commented on in more detail below.
To reach the higher levels of the mark scheme, sources need to be evaluated, their arguments placed in
context. Although some candidates achieved this, others struggled. The evaluation can be based on three
different aspects of the topic. Firstly, provenance. The evidence of both Sources B and E can be
discounted, given that both are shown to be partisan and written at a time of national crisis, following the
1860 election. Source D, the emotional attack on the South, is a private letter to the leading abolitionist in
US politics and himself noted for his extreme rhetoric. This gives weight to the interpretation of D which
argues it blames the North. Secondly, other sources in combination with provenance. Perhaps the best
example here concerns Source D, the emotional attack on the South. The contrast with Source C, written
just a few weeks before, is marked. If the moderation of Source C typifies Southern views, then it suggests
that Source D’s extreme rhetoric has no substantial cause. Thirdly, there is contextual knowledge,
information which the candidate provides, in combination with provenance. This is probably most useful with
regard to Source A. Candidates should know about Stephen Douglas and Illinois in 1858 and thus that the
31
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
extract is taken from the Douglas-Lincoln debates which were the focus of the contest to get elected as US
Senator for Illinois. Douglas is trying to win votes in a Northern state. He is unlikely to criticise the North.
The statement itself is a classic statement of popular sovereignty, the means by which Douglas hopes to
reconcile North and South. Thus the evaluated Source A does not support the assertion. Contextual
knowledge also helps with Source C and E. Source C is unrepresentative of Southern views in late 1860.
The arguments of Source E can be supported in terms of treatment of Kansas, for example. It is worth
noting that many of the candidates who referred to Douglas’s identity saw him as a Southern Senator, which
weakened any evaluation of Source A.
Having evaluated the sources one by one, candidates then need to weigh the relative value of sources for
and against the assertion. In this case, the outcome of evaluation could go either way. One could argue that
the evidence supporting the assertion is stronger than that opposing it. Source D is the key source, being a
strident response to the 1860 election in marked contrast to the moderation of Source C. One could equally
well argue the converse. Source C is untypical and Source E is supported. There is no correct answer, only
a correct approach.
Section B: Essay Questions
Question 2 Explain why the crisis of 1850 occurred and how it was resolved.
This was attempted by many of the candidates and was normally well answered. Candidates were able to
identify the crisis of 1850 and its causes. They knew the crisis centred on the issue of slavery, following the
acquisition of California and New Mexico after the war with Mexico in 1846-8 and was compounded by the
delicate balance within the USA between slave and free states. Candidates could also explain how the
compromise of 1850 settled the crisis, if only in the short term. Some candidates went too far into the 1850s,
describing events surrounding ‘bleeding Kansas’, which resulted from the failure of the 1850 compromise.
Had the question asked ‘how far’ the crisis of 1850 was resolved, then 1854 would have been relevant.
However, it only asked ‘how’.
Question 3 ‘The Confederacy lost the Civil War because its political and military leadership was
inferior.’ Discuss this assertion.
This was the most popular essay question among candidates and it was the best answered. Most
candidates had a very sound knowledge and understanding of the Civil War in general, and the reasons for
its outcome in particular. Some focused just on the question of leadership, comparing Northern and
Southern politicians and generals, which was valid. Most widened the scope of their analysis by considering
other factors, such as the demography and the economies of the two regions, which was equally valid.
Question 4 To what extent is it true to say that Progressivism was simply Populism moved up into
the middle classes?
The few candidates who attempted this struggled to get to grips with the question. Most essays were brief
descriptions of either Progressivism or Populism, or sometimes both. Candidates needed to address the
question more directly. Populism was a movement of American farmers in the 1880s and 1890s, agitating to
protect their interests; many historians see Populism as ‘backward-looking’. Progressivism was a more
broadly-based and longer-lasting movement of politicians in the main, who wanted to reform the worst
abuses of American society and economy; some historians argue that Progressivism was ‘forward-looking’.
If the Populist farmers of the American countryside are defined as working class – which is a term more
usually applied to unskilled factory workers in the industrial towns – then the question can be addressed.
The key word in the question is ‘simply’. Populist farmers were trying to defend their way of life. Progressive
politicians were trying to change the workings of the US society and economy. Thus, although there were
links between the two, Progressivism was much more ambitious than Populism.
32
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 5 In what ways did the social and economic position of African-Americans change between
1901 and 1968?
Although the changing position of African-Americans is a popular topic with candidates, this question posed
some difficulties for many candidates, who needed to know more about the social and economic position of
the African-Americans, especially in the earlier years of the twentieth century. Few candidates mentioned
the Great Migration from South to North in the sixty years from 1910 to 1970, which is so important in
answering this question. In 1900, 90% of African-Americans lived in the South; by 1970, just over half did
so. The move from South to North had also meant a move from countryside to town, from agricultural
labourer to industrial worker. Some became skilled workers and joined the middle class. This change
occurred without the intervention of politicians. Candidates still mentioned W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T.
Washington, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even if none were directly relevant. Many candidates would
have benefited from answering the question as set.
Question 6 ‘A triumph of image over substance.’ Discuss this verdict on the first two Presidential
terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
FDR is also a popular topic and generally, this question was well answered. The question did not specify
domestic polices, which meant that foreign policy could also be considered, if briefly. A small number of
answers did do so and were suitably rewarded. Most, however, focused on the New Deal. As always, better
answers addressed the question directly, rather than just explaining key features of the New Deal before
concluding with a brief attempt to answer the question. The quotation requires candidates to consider the
relationship between the image of the New Deal and its substance. On one side is the more conventional
view, that the New Deal was a success, if not totally so. On the other side, critics of the New Deal argue it
was a relative failure in addressing the USA’s social and economic problems. Arguments could be refined by
distinguishing between the first and second terms of Roosevelt’s presidency. The best answers were
focused and analytical throughout. Others mixed explanation/description with analysis/evaluation.
Question 7 ‘The United States’ retreat into isolationism was more apparent than real in the period
1919 to 1941.’ Critically examine the validity of this statement.
The small number of candidates who chose this question knew and understood enough of US foreign policy
between the wars to make a reasonable attempt at answering the question. They knew the key features of
that policy: the decision not to join the League of Nations; the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928; the Dawes Plan
and the Young Plan to settle the reparations issue; Neutrality Acts in the late 1930s. Some mentioned the
changing international context, which affected US foreign policy: lack of tension in the 1920s; the rise of
fascist powers in the 1930s. Most concentrated on the later 1930s, the best known part of the two decades.
Most agreed with the assertion.
Question 8 To what extent was increasing national prosperity shared by all Americans between 1945
and 1968?
Those who attempted this question needed more specific knowledge. Answers showed that candidates had
only the most general knowledge of economic growth in the quarter of a century after the Second World War.
When it came to the distribution of that wealth, candidate responses would have been improved by
developing solid argument based on detailed evidence.
33
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/52
Paper 52
Key Messages and General Comments
The vast majority of candidates met the requirements of the examination by answering three essay questions
as well as the compulsory source-based question. Marks awarded for the essays were generally higher than
those awarded for answers to Question 1. Some candidates struggled with source evaluation, spending
too long describing what the sources said, which left little time for the all-important evaluation. They would
have improved their responses by giving a brief descriptive summary of the sources before moving quickly
on to evaluation. The main improvement that could be made to essays would be a sharper focus on the
question as actually set. Though many candidates do so, there are others who write about the topic in
general, rather than focus on the specific question set on some aspect of that topic. The question must be
answered by use of relevant evidence. Given the difference between Question 1 marks and essay marks,
however, candidates can most easily improve their overall performances by practising the use of evaluation
skills for Question 1. Making valid, evaluative comments on some of the sources found in Question 1
would improve the performances of many candidates.
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1 Source-based Question: The Growth of Sectional Antagonism, 1858-1861
‘The North was to blame for the growth of sectional antagonism between 1858 and 1861.’ Using
sources A-E, discuss how far the evidence supports this assertion.
The set of five sources included one which clearly supported the assertion: Source B was from a Southern
newspaper and was published just after the 1860 presidential election. The set also contained one source
which clearly opposed the assertion: Source E, a speech made by a Northern Congressman several weeks
after the 1860 election. Each of the remaining three sources was less clear-cut in allocating blame, and
some candidates found the interpretation of these sources a challenge. For example, Source A, from
Democratic Senator Douglas, neither mentioned sectional antagonism directly, nor blamed the North, but it
could be evaluated and used in response to the hypothesis (see comments below). Source C is a cautious,
complicated statement from a leading Southerner, again after the 1860 election, which hopes for conflict
resolution within the USA. Source D, from a leading Northerner, could be interpreted in two distinct ways:
the author’s argument that civil war is inevitable means the North is not to blame, or the author’s emotional
attack on slavery, which could well have provoked antagonism, meaning the North is to blame. Better
candidates adopted this two-sided approach. On the surface, the set of sources might be seen as evenly
balanced: Source B and one interpretation of Source D are in favour while Source E and another
interpretation of D are against. Sources A and C are commented on in more detail below.
To reach the higher levels of the mark scheme, sources need to be evaluated, their arguments placed in
context. Although some candidates achieved this, others struggled. The evaluation can be based on three
different aspects of the topic. Firstly, provenance. The evidence of both Sources B and E can be
discounted, given that both are shown to be partisan and written at a time of national crisis, following the
1860 election. Source D, the emotional attack on the South, is a private letter to the leading abolitionist in
US politics and himself noted for his extreme rhetoric. This gives weight to the interpretation of D which
argues it blames the North. Secondly, other sources in combination with provenance. Perhaps the best
example here concerns Source D, the emotional attack on the South. The contrast with Source C, written
just a few weeks before, is marked. If the moderation of Source C typifies Southern views, then it suggests
that Source D’s extreme rhetoric has no substantial cause. Thirdly, there is contextual knowledge,
information which the candidate provides, in combination with provenance. This is probably most useful with
regard to Source A. Candidates should know about Stephen Douglas and Illinois in 1858 and thus that the
34
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
extract is taken from the Douglas-Lincoln debates which were the focus of the contest to get elected as US
Senator for Illinois. Douglas is trying to win votes in a Northern state. He is unlikely to criticise the North.
The statement itself is a classic statement of popular sovereignty, the means by which Douglas hopes to
reconcile North and South. Thus the evaluated Source A does not support the assertion. Contextual
knowledge also helps with Source C and E. Source C is unrepresentative of Southern views in late 1860.
The arguments of Source E can be supported in terms of treatment of Kansas, for example. It is worth
noting that many of the candidates who referred to Douglas’s identity saw him as a Southern Senator, which
weakened any evaluation of Source A.
Having evaluated the sources one by one, candidates then need to weigh the relative value of sources for
and against the assertion. In this case, the outcome of evaluation could go either way. One could argue that
the evidence supporting the assertion is stronger than that opposing it. Source D is the key source, being a
strident response to the 1860 election in marked contrast to the moderation of Source C. One could equally
well argue the converse. Source C is untypical and Source E is supported. There is no correct answer, only
a correct approach.
Section B: Essay Questions
Question 2 Explain why the crisis of 1850 occurred and how it was resolved.
This was attempted by many of the candidates and was normally well answered. Candidates were able to
identify the crisis of 1850 and its causes. They knew the crisis centred on the issue of slavery, following the
acquisition of California and New Mexico after the war with Mexico in 1846-8 and was compounded by the
delicate balance within the USA between slave and free states. Candidates could also explain how the
compromise of 1850 settled the crisis, if only in the short term. Some candidates went too far into the 1850s,
describing events surrounding ‘bleeding Kansas’, which resulted from the failure of the 1850 compromise.
Had the question asked ‘how far’ the crisis of 1850 was resolved, then 1854 would have been relevant.
However, it only asked ‘how’.
Question 3 ‘The Confederacy lost the Civil War because its political and military leadership was
inferior.’ Discuss this assertion.
This was the most popular essay question among candidates and it was the best answered. Most
candidates had a very sound knowledge and understanding of the Civil War in general, and the reasons for
its outcome in particular. Some focused just on the question of leadership, comparing Northern and
Southern politicians and generals, which was valid. Most widened the scope of their analysis by considering
other factors, such as the demography and the economies of the two regions, which was equally valid.
Question 4 To what extent is it true to say that Progressivism was simply Populism moved up into
the middle classes?
The few candidates who attempted this struggled to get to grips with the question. Most essays were brief
descriptions of either Progressivism or Populism, or sometimes both. Candidates needed to address the
question more directly. Populism was a movement of American farmers in the 1880s and 1890s, agitating to
protect their interests; many historians see Populism as ‘backward-looking’. Progressivism was a more
broadly-based and longer-lasting movement of politicians in the main, who wanted to reform the worst
abuses of American society and economy; some historians argue that Progressivism was ‘forward-looking’.
If the Populist farmers of the American countryside are defined as working class – which is a term more
usually applied to unskilled factory workers in the industrial towns – then the question can be addressed.
The key word in the question is ‘simply’. Populist farmers were trying to defend their way of life. Progressive
politicians were trying to change the workings of the US society and economy. Thus, although there were
links between the two, Progressivism was much more ambitious than Populism.
35
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 5 In what ways did the social and economic position of African-Americans change between
1901 and 1968?
Although the changing position of African-Americans is a popular topic with candidates, this question posed
some difficulties for many candidates, who needed to know more about the social and economic position of
the African-Americans, especially in the earlier years of the twentieth century. Few candidates mentioned
the Great Migration from South to North in the sixty years from 1910 to 1970, which is so important in
answering this question. In 1900, 90% of African-Americans lived in the South; by 1970, just over half did
so. The move from South to North had also meant a move from countryside to town, from agricultural
labourer to industrial worker. Some became skilled workers and joined the middle class. This change
occurred without the intervention of politicians. Candidates still mentioned W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T.
Washington, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even if none were directly relevant. Many candidates would
have benefited from answering the question as set.
Question 6 ‘A triumph of image over substance.’ Discuss this verdict on the first two Presidential
terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
FDR is also a popular topic and generally, this question was well answered. The question did not specify
domestic polices, which meant that foreign policy could also be considered, if briefly. A small number of
answers did do so and were suitably rewarded. Most, however, focused on the New Deal. As always, better
answers addressed the question directly, rather than just explaining key features of the New Deal before
concluding with a brief attempt to answer the question. The quotation requires candidates to consider the
relationship between the image of the New Deal and its substance. On one side is the more conventional
view, that the New Deal was a success, if not totally so. On the other side, critics of the New Deal argue it
was a relative failure in addressing the USA’s social and economic problems. Arguments could be refined by
distinguishing between the first and second terms of Roosevelt’s presidency. The best answers were
focused and analytical throughout. Others mixed explanation/description with analysis/evaluation.
Question 7 ‘The United States’ retreat into isolationism was more apparent than real in the period
1919 to 1941.’ Critically examine the validity of this statement.
The small number of candidates who chose this question knew and understood enough of US foreign policy
between the wars to make a reasonable attempt at answering the question. They knew the key features of
that policy: the decision not to join the League of Nations; the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928; the Dawes Plan
and the Young Plan to settle the reparations issue; Neutrality Acts in the late 1930s. Some mentioned the
changing international context, which affected US foreign policy: lack of tension in the 1920s; the rise of
fascist powers in the 1930s. Most concentrated on the later 1930s, the best known part of the two decades.
Most agreed with the assertion.
Question 8 To what extent was increasing national prosperity shared by all Americans between 1945
and 1968?
Those who attempted this question needed more specific knowledge. Answers showed that candidates had
only the most general knowledge of economic growth in the quarter of a century after the Second World War.
When it came to the distribution of that wealth, candidate responses would have been improved by
developing solid argument based on detailed evidence.
36
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
HISTORY
Paper 9697/53
Paper 53
Key Messages and General comments
The vast majority of candidates met the requirements of the examination by answering three essay questions
as well as the compulsory source-based question. Marks awarded for the essays were generally higher than
those awarded for answers to Question 1. Some candidates struggled with source evaluation, spending
too long describing what the sources said, which left little time for the all-important evaluation. They would
have improved their responses by giving a brief descriptive summary of the sources before moving quickly
on to evaluation. The main improvement that could be made to essays would be a sharper focus on the
question as actually set. Though many candidates do so, there are others who write about the topic in
general, rather than focus on the specific question set on some aspect of that topic. The question must be
answered by use of relevant evidence. Given the difference between Question 1 marks and essay marks,
however, candidates can most easily improve their overall performances by practising the use of evaluation
skills for Question 1. Making valid, evaluative comments on some of the sources found in Question 1
would improve the performances of many candidates.
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1 Source-based question: The Break-Up of the Union 1860-1861
‘It is unfair to blame Buchanan for his handling of the secession crisis of 1860-61.’ Using Sources AE, discuss how far the evidence supports this assertion.
There were two features of this question which made this an interesting hypothesis to test. Firstly, none of
the extracts from four contemporary sources explicitly mentions Buchanan. Admittedly, Source A is from
Buchanan but to some extent this makes analysis in terms of the quotation a little less straightforward.
Source B is quite clearly a criticism of Buchanan’s annual message to Congress but that leads to another
interesting feature. The hypothesis contains what might be described as a ‘double negative’: unfair and
blame. Some candidates asserted that Source B supports the assertion; they focused on ‘blame’. It does
not do this. Candidates needed to turn Source B around and argue that it is evidence against the assertion;
it shows that blaming Buchanan is fair. Many understood the source but drew the wrong inference from it.
So Source B clearly challenges the hypothesis. Which Source clearly supports it? Source A would seem to
be the obvious choice. President Buchanan cannot blame himself for his handling of the secession crisis
provoked by the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in November 1860. The question, however, does
not ask for Buchanan’s perspective, it asks for an analysis of the words of Buchanan. In this extract from his
annual speech to Congress, the president argues against the use of military force for both constitutional and
political reasons. His approach is passive. Does that mean he is to blame? More knowledge is needed,
which starts the process of evaluation. Source E, a secondary source, is broadly sympathetic to Buchanan
and his predicament, which today might be described as a no-win situation. Contextual knowledge should
have helped further. The key point about Buchanan in late 1860 and early 1861 was that he was a lameduck president. There were four months between the election of Lincoln and his inauguration as president,
when Buchanan was a president with rapidly-diminishing authority. More candidates could have mentioned
this point – it is actually mentioned in Source E. It can be used to let Buchanan off the hook - to support the
assertion. Those with more detailed knowledge on Buchanan’s policies at this time could have used it to
show how poorly he handled the secession crisis - in other words, to challenge the assertion. In the case of
Source A, evaluation is essential in using it to answer the question.
What of the remaining three sources? The two contemporary sources, C and D, show how entrenched
Southerners were - how resistant to compromise, making Buchanan’s job all the more difficult. They could
37
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
be used as evidence for the defence of Buchanan. Source E, the secondary source, provides the clearest
evidence that Buchanan could be held responsible, at least in part, for the developing secession crisis of
1860-61. Timidity is not a quality presidents should have in times of crisis. Further evidence of Buchanan’s
timidity is shown by his failure to try and achieve some kind of compromise between the two sides, the US
Senator from Kentucky, Crittenden, showing greater initiative with his detailed plan in December 1860. At a
time when the USA needed effective leadership, Buchanan was totally ineffective. Given the context,
Buchanan’s efforts probably would have failed. The main criticism of Buchanan is that he did not even try to
resolve the conflict.
Section B: Essay Questions
Question 2 Assess the reasons for opposition in the United States to President Polk’s aggressive,
expansionist policies.
The candidates who answered this question could write about Polk’s aggressive policies. They were keen to
write about manifest destiny. They would have benefited from more knowledge of opposition to those
polices. Those who did know something about the opposition – which ranged from those who argued he
was too aggressive to those who argued he was not expansionist enough – usually described the
opposition’s arguments. The question asked candidates to assess the reasons for opposition to Polk’s
foreign policy, which required some form of evaluation. A small number of candidates were able to provide
the focused analytical answer needed to ensure the highest marks.
Question 3 ‘The explanation for the outcome of the Civil War lies in the weaknesses of the South
rather than the strengths of the North.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Questions on the Civil War are always popular and this question was no exception. Most who chose it
achieved high marks. They focused on the question. They knew the weaknesses of the South and the
strengths of the North, both of which they could illustrate with some impressively detailed evidence. They
could compare weaknesses and strengths of the two sides in order to develop a thoughtful and relevant
analysis. Many made the valid point that weaknesses and strengths were interrelated; poor leadership on
one side was poor when compared to leadership on the other, for example.
Question 4 Account for the widespread unrest among American farmers in the latter part of the
nineteenth century.
There were too few responses to this question for meaningful comments to be made.
Question 5 Why did African-Americans find it so difficult to secure their constitutional rights
between 1900 and 1965?
The history of African-Americans in the twentieth century is the most popular essay topic of all. The focus of
this particular question proved challenging for some candidates. Most answers tended to describe various
aspects of race relations at various times in the twentieth century, with a particular focus on the twenty years
following the end of the Second World War. In other words, they tended to explain how it took AfricanAmericans so long to gain their rights. More candidates could have explained why gaining constitutional
rights was delayed for so long, and organising the relevant reasons into the coherent, well organised
answers would have benefited many.
Question 6 To what extent did the achievements of the New Deal outweigh its shortcomings?
Another popular essay topic, the New Deal allows candidates to describe the various reforms of the FDR era
at some length. Those candidates who saw the New Deal as an almost unalloyed blessing on the USA
could use this question to list under the heading of achievements not only its many reforms but also less
tangible benefits, such as restoring American self-confidence. Such answers usually had a much briefer list
of shortcomings, which usually focused on FDR’s battle with the Supreme Court. Few candidates argued the
other way, seeing the New Deal as having more weaknesses than strengths. Some did argue that
achievements and shortcomings balanced each other, however. The failure of the New Deal to restore
economic growth, the chaotic, improvised, sometimes contradictory nature of the alphabet agencies and the
neglect of social groups such as the African-Americans, all counted on the debit side of the New Deal’s
account.
38
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9697 History November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 7 To what extent were President Roosevelt’s policies towards Germany, Italy and Japan
ineffective?
Of the few candidates who attempted this question, some provided a rather hurried, rather general narrative
of Roosevelt’s foreign policy in the 1930s and early 1940s, for which they received some limited credit. They
usually mentioned Neutrality Acts as aspects of a policy of isolationism, which they then asserted meant that
Roosevelt’s policies were ineffective. The mention of the three powers might have dissuaded some
candidates from answering the question. The one thing these states had in common was that they were all
fascist states. Thus candidates could have focused on how effective FDR’s policies were towards fascism.
And effectiveness can be measured only if goals are specified. Was the aim of his policy towards the three
fascist powers appeasement, giving into what was asserted to be their legitimate demands, as was the case
with the UK and France before 1939? Did FDR even have a single policy towards the three states, two
European and one Asiatic? How consistently did FDR treat the three powers between 1933 and 1941?
There were plenty of relevant areas which could have been explored, and had more candidates approached
the question in such a way, supported by detailed and relevant examples, they could have achieved higher
marks.
Question 8 Account for the sustained economic boom in the United States between 1945 and 1968.
Most of the small number of candidates who answered this question preferred social history to economic
history. Those who did attempt the question described the development of the USA after the war in very
general terms, writing about the growth of the consumer economy as more consumer goods were
developed. More candidates needed to note the importance of ‘account for’. The phrase is close to but
importantly different from ‘give an account of’. The latter asks how, the former asks why. Thus the question
asked why the USA experienced a twenty-year economic boom. A small number of candidates did focus on
the reasons for the boom. These included the expanded economic role of the federal government, a feature
compounded by the cold war, which sustained US government expenditure at an unusually high level. The
baby boomer generation played its part as well, stimulating demand for goods and services.
39
© 2011