History Grade 12 P1 NSC November 2025 Addendum (English)

Confidential NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE GRADE 12 HISTORY P1 NOVEMBER 2025 ADDENDUM This addendum consists of 14 pages. Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 2 DBE/November 2025 NSC − Addendum Confidential QUESTION 1: HOW DID THE POLICY OF CONTAINMENT CONTRIBUTE TO COLD WAR TENSIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE SOVIET UNION IN 1947? SOURCE 1A The source below is an extract from the 'Iron Curtain' speech delivered by Britain's former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, in Fulton, Missouri in the USA on 5 March 1946. It was taken from Chambers Book of Great Speeches edited by A Burnet. It highlights how communism had spread into Eastern Europe. A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its communist international organisation intend to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising (persuasive) tendencies. I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant (brave) Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain – and I doubt not here also – towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve (decision) to persevere (continue) through many differences and rebuffs (rejections) in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her Western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own people on both sides of the Atlantic. It is my duty, however – for I am sure you would wish me to state the facts as I see them to you – to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe. From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended (fallen) across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia: all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow … [From Chambers Book of Great Speeches edited by A Burnet] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 3 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 1B 2025 The cartoon below titled 'WHAT WE'RE DRIVING AT' by SJ Ray appeared in the Kansas City Star newspaper in the United States of America (USA) on 13 March 1947. It depicts President Truman using a hammer called 'U.S. AID' to stop the ideological and political threats posed by the communists. WHAT WE'RE DRIVING AT TURKEY GREECE [From the Kansas City Star newspaper, 13 March 1947] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 4 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 1C The source below is from an article titled 'The Marshall Plan: Filling in Some Blanks' by K Burk and it appeared in the journal Contemporary European History, published in 2001. It outlines how the US introduced the Marshall Plan to contain the spread of communism across Europe. Marshall Plan policymakers had two main concerns here. First of all, broken economies might foster the growth of communism much like mulch (compost) fosters mushrooms, a fear particularly prevalent (common) with regard to France, Italy, Greece and *Trizone Germany. A second major goal of American policy was to contain the Soviet Union, which was perceived (seen) as having embarked on active expansion and as being irremediably (severely) hostile to the United States. A swift glance (look) at a map made it clear why Turkey, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden were included: Turkey and Greece would guard the eastern Mediterranean; Ireland would guard the approaches to the British Isles and the western Mediterranean; Norway and Iceland were strategically placed athwart (diagonally); the routes across the North Atlantic and Sweden lay across the Baltic Sea from the Soviet Union, its entire south-eastern coast effectively ringed with Soviet military forces. The need to contain the Soviet Union, plus the desire to rebuild the European economy, came together in the third goal, which was the drive for European integration. An integrated Europe working together politically as well as economically, would constitute the strongest possible barrier to Soviet expansion, and certainly the United States maintained constant pressure on the participants in the Marshall Plan to move towards this goal. [From 'The Marshall Plan: Filling in Some Blanks', Contemporary European History by K Burk] *Trizone: Germany was divided into four zones of occupation (by the Allied powers), namely the USA zone, the British zone, the French zone and the Russian zone. 'Trizone' refers to the three zones of the Western countries, i.e. the USA, Britain and France tied together by the ideology of capitalism. Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 5 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 1D The source below is from a book titled History of Western Civilization by J McLean. It gives a detailed account of the Molotov Plan that was introduced by the Soviet Union in 1947 to oppose the USA's containment policy. The Molotov Plan was the system created by the Soviet Union in 1947 to provide aid to rebuild the countries in Eastern Europe that were politically and economically aligned with the Soviet Union. It can be seen as the USSR's version of the Marshall Plan, which for political reasons the Eastern European countries would not be able to join without leaving the Soviet sphere of influence. Soviet foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, rejected the Marshall Plan (1947), proposing the Molotov Plan – the Soviet- sponsored economic grouping which was eventually expanded to become the *COMECON. The Molotov Plan was symbolic of the Soviet Union's refusal to accept aid from the Marshall Plan or allow any of their satellite states to do so because of their belief that the Plan was an attempt to weaken Soviet interest in their satellite states through the conditions imposed and by making beneficiary (receiving) countries economically dependent on the United States. The plan was a system of bilateral trade agreements that established the COMECON to create an economic alliance of socialist countries. This aid allowed countries in Europe to stop relying on American aid, and therefore allowed Molotov Plan states to reorganise their trade to the USSR instead. [From History of Western Civilization by J McLean] *COMECON: a Soviet-led economic organisation of communist states formed in 1949 to promote economic cooperation and integration among its members Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 6 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential QUESTION 2: WHY DID THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) BECOME INVOLVED IN THE ANGOLAN CIVIL WAR FROM 1975? SOURCE 2A The source below is an extract from the book Kissinger in Angola: The Influence of Personality on Foreign Policy Working Paper by M Guta. It highlights how the United States (US) Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, influenced American foreign policy towards Angola during 1975. The United States of America (USA) did not want the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) to gain control of Angola, and under the direction of the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations in Angola gained serious ground in 1975. Provisions for United States involvement in Africa were intentionally vague and stated that CIA involvement in Africa was to be a provision of material, support and advice to create a stable climate in newly independent African countries, leaving out the mention of Angola specifically. With this flexibility, the CIA provided over 22 million dollars in covert support to the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) and the National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola (UNITA) by the fall of 1975. Beyond monetary aid for the FNLA and UNITA, Kissinger's plans for Angola culminated (ended) into the covert CIA Operation known as IAFEATURE. IAFEATURE was in place to secretly launch a paramilitary programme against the MPLA under the CIA, and was kept top secret so that it did not have to be explained to the public in the aftermath of the recent failure in Vietnam. On the flipside of the defeat in Vietnam, Kissinger wanted to redeem American foreign policy from this failure and saw Angola as the place to do it; he wanted to prove that the United States was still the global world power. [From Kissinger in Angola: The Influence of Personality on Foreign Policy Working Paper by M Guta] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 7 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 2B The source below is an extract from a book, The Silent War: South African Recce Operations 1969–1994, written by P Stiff. It explains why the USA became involved in the Angolan Civil War after 1975. The US had poured uncounted millions of dollars into the bottomless pit of Mobutu's corrupt military dictatorship over the previous ten years. It was a case of buying popularity to ward off the possibility of Soviet influence making inroads into Zaire. Gratitude by Mobutu was never a factor in their diplomatic relations and when world copper prices plunged (fell) in early 1975 … Mobutu turned on his benefactors. In June 1975 he accused the US of backing a coup to topple him. He expelled the US ambassador … The US State Department, headed by the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, anxious to get back in Mobutu's favour, decided to enhance its support of his Angolan policy by lending weight to the FNLA's cause. CIA Director, William Colby, told the National Security Council he needed $100 million to ensure that Holden Roberto (FNLA leader) won, but this was too large a sum to keep secret, so only $41,7 million was authorised. The CIA's task seemingly was not to win but to prevent an easy victory for the Soviet-backed forces. The result, it was hoped, would be that both the FNLA and UNITA would gain a major say in any future Angolan government … The operation was to provide material, support and advice to moderate nationalist movements to enable them to create a stable climate to allow genuine self-determination in newly emerging African states. It did not mention Angola, supposedly because this was only to be mentioned by the Director of the CIA in his verbal briefings. [From The Silent War: South African Recce Operations 1969–1994 by P Stiff] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 8 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 2C The source below was taken from an interview that was included in the book, Conflicting Missions: Washington, Havana, Africa 1959–1976 by P Gleijeses, published in 2002. The interview was between Gleijeses and RW Hultslander who was the last Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Station Chief in Luanda, Angola in 1988. It explains the secret programme conducted by the CIA in Angola in the mid-70s. PIERO GLEIJESES: What was your opinion about the CIA covert action programme code, named IAFEATURE? ROBERT W HULTSLANDER: Simply put, I was opposed to the covert action programme in Angola because I was convinced it would not succeed, and would badly damage our ability to work in the future with moderate elements throughout Africa. We were not prepared to spend the necessary resources to assure victory. Or more fairly put, we should have realised that our adversaries (enemies) – Moscow and Havana – were more determined and much better positioned than we. And, they did not have a hostile Congress controlling the purse strings. Kissinger was determined to challenge the Soviet Union, although no vital US interests were at stake. Instead of working with the moderate elements in Angola, which I believe we could have found within the MPLA, we supported the radical, tribal, 'anti-Soviet right'. You write that, 'Kissinger feared that an MPLA victory would have destabilising (disrupting) effects throughout southern Africa.' Of course, the opposite proved true; it was our policies which caused the 'destabilisation'. […] I did my best to argue the US policy position and defend the covert action programme during my all-night session with [Senator] Clark at Killoran's Luanda residence. My heart was not in it, however, and I finally admitted that I personally thought our support of Roberto and Savimbi would prove disastrous. This position, as you can imagine, caused me problems with my own superiors, and infuriated (angered) Kissinger. [From Conflicting Missions: Washington, Havana, Africa 1959–1976 by P Gleijeses] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 9 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 2D The cartoon below was drawn by Portuguese cartoonist L Silva, published in 1993 in a magazine, Angola & Cartoons Towards the Year 2000. It depicts American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, mediating in the Angolan conflict. KISSINGER … and my country as a party involved in the mediation of the conflict, promises to do everything to bring it to a definitive end. UNITA MPLA [From Angola & Cartoons Towards the Year 2000 by L Silva] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 10 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential QUESTION 3: HOW DID THE NON-VIOLENT APPROACH ADOPTED BY MARTIN LUTHER KING JR CHARACTERISE THE CIVIL SOCIETY PROTESTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) DURING THE 1960s? SOURCE 3A The source below is from an article titled 'Martin Luther King and the Philosophy of Non-violence' written by C Risen and published in a journal, Bill of Rights in Action, in 2017. It explains how Martin Luther King Jr was influenced by passive resistance ideas introduced by Mahatma Gandhi. King's earliest exposure to the ideas that would coalesce (blend) in his non-violent philosophy occurred when he was an undergraduate at Morehouse College. It was not until he began to study the life and works of Mahatma Gandhi that he began to see the possibility of applying non-violence to the specific problems of African Americans, especially in the South. As he later told it, in Philadelphia he listened to a sermon by the president of Howard University, Mordecai Johnson, who spoke at length about the teachings and actions of Gandhi, and in particular his use of non-violent mass protest to challenge British control over India. For King, the heart of Gandhi's non-violence was love, in the spiritual, transcendent (divine) form of the word. In the face of coercive (intimidating), racist British rule, Gandhi so loved his oppressors that he refused to take up arms against them. What did King mean by non-violence? It was not merely the refusal to hit back, an insistence on turning the other cheek. It was, in its own way, aggressive. It meant putting oneself in the face of violence, of actively confronting it and, responding with love to the jabs and punches. It also meant organising thousands across the South in specific mass actions that would force face-to-face encounters with white, racist power. Doing so, King thought, would demonstrate both the impotence (weakness) of white violence and show the country that the black community was not afraid to insist on its rights. [From Bill of Rights in Action, Vol. 32, 2017] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 11 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 3B The source below is extracted from Martin Luther King Jr's direct words taken from a book titled The Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr by H Walton, published in 1971. It gives an account of King's commitment to the philosophy of non-violence. I think we have come to the point where there is no longer a choice now between non-violence and riots. It must be militant, massive non-violence, or riots. The discontent is so deep, the anger so ingrained (deep-rooted), the despair, the restlessness so wide, that something has to be brought into being to serve as a channel through which these deep emotional feelings, these deep angry feelings, can be funnelled (directed). There has to be an outlet, and I see this campaign as a way to transmute (change) the inchoate (underdeveloped) rage of the ghetto into a constructive and creative channel. It becomes an outlet for anger. Even if I didn't deal with the moral dimensions and question of violence versus non-violence, from a practical point of view, I don't see riots working. But I am convinced that if rioting continues, it will strengthen the right wing of the country and we'll end up with a kind of right-wing takeover in the cities and a Fascist development, which will be terribly injurious (harmful) to the whole nation. I don't think America can stand another summer of Detroit-like riots without a development that could destroy the soul of the nation, even the democratic possibilities of the nation. I am committed to non-violence absolutely. I'm just not going to kill anybody, whether it's in Vietnam or here. I'm not going to burn down any building. If non-violent protest fails this summer, I will continue to preach it and teach it, and we at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference will still do this. I plan to stand by non-violence because I have found it to be a philosophy of life that regulates not only my dealings in the struggle for racial justice but also my dealings with people, with my own self. I will be faithful to non-violence. [From The Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr by H Walton] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 12 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 3C The source below is a photograph taken from a book titled Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954–63 by T Branch. It shows three students participating in a sit-in at a lunch counter, in Jackson, Mississippi, on 28 May 1963. A member of the white group is pouring a liquid substance over a seated student. [From Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954–63 by T Branch] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 13 DBE/November 2025 NSC – Addendum Confidential SOURCE 3D The extract below is part of an interview that KB Clark conducted with Martin Luther King Jr prior to the 28 August 1963 March on Washington. Clark was a child psychologist who provided psychological data to support the Civil Rights Movement. It focuses on the negative criticism of the non-violent approach and how King Jr responded. CLARK: He (Malcolm X) goes beyond that in some of the things I've heard him say – to say that this is deliberately your philosophy of love of the oppressor which he identifies completely with the non-violent movement. He says this philosophy and this movement are actually encouraged by whites because it makes them comfortable. It makes them believe that *Negroes are meek (submissive), supine (passive) creatures. KING: Well, I don't think that's true. If anyone has ever lived with a non-violent movement in the South, from Montgomery on through the Freedom Rides and through the sit-in movement and the recent Birmingham movement and seen the reactions of many of the extremists and reactionaries in the white community, he wouldn't say that this movement makes – this philosophy – makes them comfortable. I think it arouses a sense of shame within them often – in many instances. I think it does something to touch the conscience and establish a sense of guilt. CLARK: James Baldwin (American Civil Rights activist) raises still another point of the whole non-violent position, an approach. He raises the question of whether it will be possible to contain the Negro people within this framework of non-violence if we continue to have more of the kinds of demonstrations that we had in Birmingham, wherein the police brought dogs to attack human beings. What is your reaction to Mr Baldwin's anxiety? KING: … we can be sure that the vast majority of Negroes who engage in the demonstrations and who understand the non-violent philosophy will be able to face dogs and all of the other brutal methods that are used without retaliating with violence … [From A TESTAMENT OF HOPE: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr, edited by JM Washington] *Negroes: a derogatory name used in the USA in the past to refer to African (black) Americans Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P1 14 DBE/November 2025 NSC − Addendum Confidential ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Visual sources and other historical evidence were taken from the following: Bill of Rights in Action, Vol. 32, 2017 Branch, T. 1988. Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954–63 (Simon and Schuster Inc., New York) Burnet, A. 2006. Chambers Book of Great Speeches (Harrap Publishers Ltd, UK) Contemporary European History, Vol. 10, No. 2, July 2001 Gleijeses, P. 2002. Conflicting Missions: Washington, Havana, Africa 1959–1976 (Chapel Hill, London) Guta, M. 2016. Kissinger in Angola: The Influence of Personality on Foreign Policy Working Paper (Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada) Kansas City Star newspaper, 13 March 1947 McLean, J. 2003. History of Western Civilization (Simple Book Publishing, USA) Silva, L. 1993. Angola & Cartoons Towards the Year 2000 (Edicao EDIPRESS, Luanda) Stiff, P. 1999. The Silent War: South African Recce Operations 1969–1994 (Galago Publishing, Alberton, South Africa) Walton, H. 1971. The Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr (Greenwood Press Inc., UK) Washington, JM. 1991. A TESTAMENT OF HOPE: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr (Harper Collins Publishers, New York) Copyright reserved