HISTORY GRADE 12 ADDENDUM - AMENDED SENIOR CERTIFICATE PAST PAPERS AND MEMOS MAY/JUNE2017
Share via Whatsapp Join our WhatsApp Group Join our Telegram GroupHISTORY PAPER 1
GRADE 12
SENIOR CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS
MAY/JUNE2017
ADDENDUM
QUESTION 1:
HOW DID THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE SOVIET
UNION RESPOND TO THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN EUROPE AFTER 1946?
SOURCE 1A
This source explains the United States of America's intention to contain the spread of communism in Europe from 1947 onwards.
| … United States officials in 1947 and 1948 did not have precise ideas about how to implement containment. Should containment be applied everywhere? Should it be applied militarily? Should the United States focus on economic aid to nations seeking to reconstruct their economies? Should the United States assign priority to occupation policies, especially in Germany and Japan? Initially, in what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the United States president proposed military aid to Greece and Turkey, and declared that the United States would contest totalitarian expansion everywhere. But his subordinates quickly recognised that they had to calculate priorities carefully. They decided that they should focus on economic reconstruction in Western Europe rather than military rearmament; that they should seek to erode (wear down) support for communist parties in France, Italy, and Greece; that they should manage the revitalisation (recovery) of Western Germany and Japan, and co-opt (choose) their future power. Containment meant that Soviet influence and communist ideology should be contained within the areas occupied by the forces of the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. In June 1947, the United States announced the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe. The governments of most Western European nations were happy to receive US money and participate in a reconstruction programme. But they possessed deep fears about the revival of German power. In order to get the French to cooperate, the United States promised to retain its occupation forces inside Germany. |
SOURCE 1B
The source below is an extract from George Marshall's speech which was delivered at Cambridge, Massachusetts in the United States of America on 5 June 1947. He announced his economic plan to assist European countries.
| … The remedy seems to lie in breaking the vicious (brutal) circle and restoring the confidence of the people of Europe in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies, the continuing value which is not open to question. Aside from the demoralising (disturbing) effect on the world at large and the people concerned, the consequences (costs) to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world, so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist … Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full co-operation, I am sure, on the part of the United States government. Any government which manoeuvres (moves) to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate (continue) human misery (suffering) in order to profit politically or otherwise, will encounter the opposition of the United States. [From Book of Great Speeches by A Burnet] |
SOURCE 1C
The extract below is from an article entitled, 'The Turn Towards Confrontation: The Soviet Reaction to the Marshall Plan, 1947'. It was written by Scott D Parrish who analyses Stalin's rejection of the Marshall Plan.
| … Stalin revealed his fear that American economic power might effectively undermine the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Under the guise (excuse) of the Marshall Plan, not only Western Europe, but also Eastern Europe, could be mobilised into an anti-Soviet coalition … The Soviet reaction to the Marshall Plan was a comprehensive shift in grand strategy. Before Marshall's announcement Stalin had retained hopes that it would prove possible to cooperate with the West on at least some issues, in the context of a mixed relationship of competition and co-operation, now he apparently believed that even limited co-operation was impossible. The offensive threat which the Marshall Plan appeared to represent seems to have convinced the Soviet leader that the West, led by the United States, was intent (determined) on creating a hostile encirclement of the Soviet Union. Since by its actions the West had shown that it was intrinsically (naturally) hostile to the Soviet Union, he [Stalin] seems to have reasoned, any further attempts to work out a compromise settlement would not only fail to yield positive results, but might leave the Soviet Union open to Western exploitation. Consequently, Stalin rapidly moved to implement a series of harsh measures designed not only to protect his own sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, but also to undermine what he perceived to be American efforts to consolidate an anti-Soviet bloc in Western Europe. This general line of policy would continue until his death in 1953 … Prior (before) to the Marshall Plan, coalition governments with varying levels of non-communist participation were the norm in the region. Prior to the summer of 1947, such coalition governments had been in place in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. After the Marshall Plan, the decision to launch full-scale sovietisation of these states was evidently taken. While the earlier New Type Government Strategy had not called for the imposition of Stalinist police states throughout the region, the new policy did. |
SOURCE 1D
The cartoon below, by Joe Spier, was published in a booklet that was printed by the government of Netherlands in November 1949.
QUESTION 2:
HOW SIGNIFICANT WAS THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA?
SOURCE 2A
The extract below is from a South African government publication that commemorated the 20th anniversary of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.
| In 1991 former President Nelson Mandela made Cuba his first foreign destination to pay an official visit to after his release. During this visit he remarked in an address in Havana (Cuba): 'The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale is a milestone in the history of the struggle for Southern African liberation!' From 1987 to 1988, shielded from the international media and therefore largely unreported, the town of Cuito Cuanavale suffered under siege for over ten months in one of the biggest, and what turned out to be the last, battles of the Cold War. The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale irreversibly changed the history and political landscape of the Southern African region. At the previously insignificant village of Cuito Cuanavale, Angolan, Namibian and Cuban forces managed to bring the military aggression of the apartheid military forces to a halt. At the same time, South African liberation fighters of Umkhonto we Sizwe, fighting in Northern Angola, managed to contain Angolan rebel soldiers preventing them from re-enforcing the apartheid armies to the south. The peace negotiations that followed the battle led to the withdrawal of the South African military from Angola and Namibia, resulting in the independence of Namibia, and spurring on South Africa's negotiated settlement … |
SOURCE 2B
The photograph below depicts Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro attending a public rally in Havana, Cuba, in 1991. This was Nelson Mandela's first international trip after being released from prison.
SOURCE 2C
The extract below is part of an address that Ronnie Kasrils delivered in Havana, Cuba, on 24 April 2008. He focused on how the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale was a major defeat for the apartheid regime.
| … Cuito Cuanavale. One thousand kilometres from Luanda, Windhoek and Lusaka, two thousand kilometres from Pretoria, over ten thousand kilometres from Havana, yet such a remote spot at the End of the Earth created a political earthquake and helped bury a once powerful [apartheid] regime that threatened all of Africa. Cuito Cuanavale helped free tens of millions of Africans in Angola, Namibia and South Africa, strengthened the anti-imperialist forces of Africa and beyond, and established unbreakable ties between South Africa and Cuba … This week South Africa celebrates its 14th anniversary of freedom. We have made spectacular strides in improving the living conditions of our people, particularly the poor … and Cuba is with us at the most demanding points. As our ambassador, comrade Thenjiwe Mtintso, recently pointed out: None of South Africa's newly found friends are prepared, as the Cubans, to sacrifice their lives to serve in the rural areas of South Africa. Currently there are 27 co-operation agreements in areas such as health, housing, construction, education, science and technology. Since 1994 150 young [South African] doctors have, graduated from Cuban universities while 287 are still on Cuban scholarships with 60 arriving annually. More than 500 Cuban experts are currently doing internationalist duty in South Africa working as doctors, professors, specialists, in various spheres … We are most grateful for the assistance we received. |
SOURCE 2D
The extract below is from an article that was written by Gary Baines. It focuses on the significance of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale for some white South African Defence Force soldiers who fought in Angola.
| Since becoming the ruling party in South Africa, African National Congress spokespersons have regularly declared that the triumph of the Angolan and Cuban forces at Cuito Cuanavale over the 'apartheid army' strengthened the ANC's hand in negotiating a ceasefire in South Africa. From Nelson Mandela to Jacob Zuma, ANC presidents have fêted (celebrated) the Cubans as heroes who sacrificed their lives out of solidarity with the liberation struggle … These developments have led retired SADF apologists (supporters) to challenge the ANC's version. Books, letters, newspapers and blogs have been written in a bid to correct what are widely regarded as 'biased' and 'mistaken' interpretations of the events. In February 2012 Afriforum, the Afrikaner lobby group, used social media to request that people pledge support for a campaign to demand that the government cease its misrepresentation of [white] Afrikaner history ... They were also asked to endorse (approve) General Jannie Geldenhuys' recent book We Were There: Winning the War for Southern Africa, which purports (claims) to tell the 'real' history of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale … SADF veterans (soldiers) have mobilised on a number of occasions in order to contest the ANC's version of the history of the Border War in general … For this history is part of who they are and goes some way to defining their identities in post-apartheid South Africa. |
QUESTION 3:
HOW DID THE CITIZENS OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, RESPOND TO THE DESEGREGATION OF CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL IN THE 1950s?
SOURCE 3A
This source focuses on the judgement of the United States Supreme Court on school desegregation in 1954. It highlights how Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, was affected by this judgement.
| … the Court … spoke in a unanimous decision written by [Chief Justice] Earl Warren himself. The decision held that racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' On the other hand, that Amendment did not prohibit (ban) integration. In any case, the Court asserted (declared) that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal education today. Public education in the 20th century, said the Court, had become an essential component of a citizen's public life, forming the basis of democratic citizenship, normal socialisation and professional training. In this context, any child denied a good education would be unlikely to succeed in life. Where a state, therefore, has undertaken to provide universal education, such education becomes a right that must be afforded equally to both blacks and whites. Were the black and white schools 'substantially' (largely) equal to each other, as the lower courts had found? After reviewing psychological studies showing black girls in segregated schools had low racial self-esteem, the Court concluded that separating children on the basis of race creates dangerous inferiority complexes that may adversely affect black children's ability to learn. The Court concluded that, even if the tangible (physical) facilities were equal between the black and white schools, racial segregation in schools is inherently unequal and is thus always unconstitutional. |
SOURCE 3B
The extract below focuses on how the Little Rock School Board accepted the Supreme Court ruling of 1954 on school desegregation. The board was only willing to implement a gradual desegregation process that would take place over many years.
| On 22 May 1954 the Little Rock School Board issued a statement saying that it would comply with the Court's decision, once the Court outlined the method and time frame for implementation. Meanwhile, the board directed Superintendent Virgil Blossom to formulate a plan for desegregation. In May 1955 the school board adopted the Phase Programme Plan of gradual desegregation that became known as the 'Blossom Plan', after its author. The plan was originally conceived (imagined) to begin at the elementary school level. However, as parents of elementary school students became some of the most outspoken patrons (supporters) against integration, district officials decided to begin nominal (small) desegregation in the fall (autumn) of 1957 at Central High School, to expand to the junior high level by 1960 and tentatively, to the elementary level by 1963. The plan also included a transfer provision that would allow students to transfer from a school where their race was in the minority. This assured students at Horace Mann High School would remain predominantly African-American. |
SOURCE 3C
This is a pamphlet that the Mothers' League (an organisation of white American women who were against integration) distributed to stakeholders attending Central High School. It outlines the direction that the board of Central High School should take regarding the Supreme Court ruling on the desegregation of schools in the United States of America.
*Negroes: A derogatory (offensive) term used to refer to African Americans
■ Fall: Autumn in the United States of America
SOURCE 3D
This photograph shows soldiers from the National Guard directing Elizabeth Eckford to find another entrance in her attempt to enter Central High School during the integration crisis that occurred in Little Rock in 1957.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Visual sources and other historical evidence were taken from the following:
Baines, G. 2012. 'Replaying Cuito Cuanavale' History Today (Volume 62, Issue 9)
Burnet, A. 2013. Book of Great Speeches, UK (Chambers)
http://fliphtml5.com/lpnd/mdrn/basic
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/pons/s2-9143.pdf
http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/7/
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=718
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/media-detail.aspx?mediaID=7784
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/media-detail.aspx?mediaID=6625
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_brown.html
https://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/10/nelson_mandela_fidel_castro_a_video
www.pmpsa.gov.za/files/pdfs/synopsis.pdf
www.ssa.gov.za/portals/0/SSA%20docs/speeches/2008/minister%20kasrils%cuba%2024%20April%202008.pdf