History Grade 12 P1 Gauteng Mock 2020 Addendum (English)

Downloaded from hlayiso.com GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PREPARATORY EXAMINATION 2020 10791 HISTORY PAPER 1 ADDENDUM 13 pages P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 2 (Paper 1) 10791/20 QUESTION 1: HOW DID THE USSR RESPOND TO THE AMERICAN BLOCKADE OF THE SOVIET MISSILES IN CUBA IN 1960s? SOURCE 1A The source below outlines the United States of America’s discovery of missiles in Cuba in October 1962. Throughout the midst of the Cold War, the movement of Soviet personnel and equipment to Cuba had aroused suspicion in the American intelligence community. In response, US ships and planes began photographing every Cuba-bound Soviet vessel, and U-2 spy planes began regular reconnaissance (surveillance) flights over the island, just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. On September 13, Kennedy warned Soviet Premier Khrushchev: “If at any time the Communist build-up in Cuba was to endanger or interfere with our security in any way … or if Cuba should ever … become an offensive base of significant capacity for the Soviet Union, then this country will do whatever must be done to protect its own security and that of its allies.” Despite Kennedy’s warnings, the Soviets continued to construct the bases, and the United States continued to monitor their activities and take pictures. Bad weather in the Caribbean in the week of October 7, 1962, prevented American U-2 surveillance planes from making more reconnaissance flights over Fidel Castro’s Cuba. But Sunday morning, October 14, was cloudless, and the U-2 flight took photographs that, over the next few days, were analysed and reanalysed. They provided positive proof of what the United States had for months suspected – that the Soviet Union was installing medium-range nuclear weapons in Cuba, capable of striking major US cities and killing tens of millions of Americans within minutes. With the October 14 photographs, the United States caught the Soviet Union building offensive nuclear missile bases in its backyard, and the two superpowers were now joined in the first direct nuclear confrontation in history. In a televised address on October 22, 1962, President Kennedy informed the American people of the presence of missile sites in Cuba. [From https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.doc.php?flash=true&doc=94Accessed on 5 October 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 3 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 1B The source below is a letter that Chairman Khrushchev wrote to President Kennedy on October 24, 1962. In presenting us with these conditions, you, Mr. President, have flung a challenge at us. Who asked you to do this? By what right did you do this? Our ties with the Republic of Cuba, like our relations with other states, regardless of what kind of states they may be, concern only the two countries between which these relations exist. And if we now speak of the quarantine to which your letter refers, a quarantine may be established, according to accepted international practice, only by agreement of states between themselves, and not by some third party. Quarantines exist, for example, on agricultural goods and products. But in this case the question is in no way one of quarantine, but rather of far more serious things, and you yourself understand this. You, Mr. President, are not declaring a quarantine, but rather are setting forth an ultimatum and threatening that if we do not give in to your demands you will use force. Consider what you are saying! And you want to persuade me to agree to this! What would it mean to agree to these demands? It would mean guiding oneself in one's relations with other countries not by reason, but by submitting to arbitrariness (authority). You are no longer appealing to reason but wish to intimidate us. No, Mr. President, I cannot agree to this, and I think that in your own heart you recognize that I am correct. I am convinced that in my place you would act the same way. Reference to the decision of the Organisation of American States cannot in any way substantiate the demands now advanced by the United States. This organisation has absolutely no authority or basis for adopting decisions such as the one you speak of in your letter. Therefore, we do not recognise these decisions. International law exists and universally recognised norms of conduct exist. We firmly adhere to the principles of international law and observe strictly the norms which regulate navigation on the high seas, in international waters. We observe these norms and enjoy the rights recognised by all states. [From https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct24/doc2.htm/Accessed on 5 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 4 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 1C The cartoon below depicts the blockade of Soviet ships by the United States of America and the Soviet reaction towards the blockade. It was published by the Washington Star, on 24 October 1962. OFFENSIVE WEAPONS FOR CUBA “You’re threatening the peace of the world.” [From https://coldwar.unc.edu/files/2018/07/Cuban-Missile-06 Accessed on 4 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 5 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 1D The source below focuses on how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Finally, Nikita Khrushchev, who created the crisis, brought it to an end by backing down and agreeing to remove the weapons. As a political officer in the Red Army during the worst of World War II, at the siege of Stalingrad, the Soviet leader understood what could happen if things got out of hand. As his son, Sergei Khrushchev, remembered his father saying, "Once you begin shooting, you can't stop." In an effort to help him save face, Kennedy made it clear to everyone around him that there would be no gloating (satisfaction) over this victory. Castro, on the other hand was quite different in his response. When he learned that the missiles were being packed up, Castro let loose with a tirade of cursing at Khrushchev's betrayal. "He went on cursing, beating even his own record for curses," recalled his journalist friend, Carlos Franqui. There was also a feeling of letdown among the Joint Chiefs. They thought the US had capitulated (retreated) and, in the end, looked weak. They also did not trust the Russians to stand by their promise to dismantle and take home all the missiles. The Soviets had a long track record of breaking most of their previous agreements. LeMay considered the final negotiated settlement the greatest appeasement since Munich. By breaking his word to Kennedy and placing missiles in the western hemisphere, Khrushchev secured the ceremonial removal of the United States' antiquated (old) medium range missiles from Turkey in exchange for retrieving the missiles in Cuba. It was a hollow gesture as they were scheduled to be removed already, but it allowed Khrushchev to save face internationally. Castro continued to be a thorn in the side of the United States. But ultimately, he was mostly inconsequential (unimportant). More than four decades later, Kennedy's blockade and negotiated settlement stand as the best-case scenario. [From https://www.historyonthenet.com/result-of-the-cuban-missile-crisis-2Accessed on 5 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 6 (Paper 1) 10791/20 QUESTION 2: WHY DID SOUTH AFRICA BECOME INVOLVED IN THE ANGOLAN CIVIL WAR BETWEEN 1974 AND 1976? SOURCE 2A The source below focuses on the reason for the involvement of foreign powers in the Angolan civil war along the lines of the Cold War ideologies. After World War II, the tension between communist and democratic forms of government strained relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. It was a prolonged conflict in the south-western African nation, Angola, that spilled into several nearby countries. Conflict was fought along ethnic and political lines but included foreign intervention from the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and South Africa. It is the best example of a true Cold War proxy war on the African continent, and its early years would ultimately shape foreign policy in southern Africa for subsequent conflicts. 1974 – 1975 became known as the power vacuum that had been created in the newly-formed nation which gave way to fighting between several military and political factions. Three parties existed: The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), which was Marxist in nature and supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba; the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), which was backed by the United States; and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), which broke from the FNLA and was aided by China to counter Soviet assistance to the MPLA. The Apartheid government of South Africa, hoping to limit leftist activity in the region, approved the use of ground forces to bolster the retreating FNLA and UNITA forces and prevent a possible rout (failure). Following a brief offensive under the newly-formed coalition, the Soviet Union and Cuba doubled down on their defence of the MPLA government. The Soviets amped up their economic aid, while the Cubans initially committed about 15,000 ground troops to the region, a number that rose to nearly 36 000 within the year. The United States responded by furthering aid of their own to the UNITA and FNLA forces and also pledged their support to the South African manoeuvres. The war was now being fought directly between capitalist and communist leaning countries, as well as being supplied by the two superpowers of the world. [From https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/proxy-wars-during-cold-war-africaAccessed on 22 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 7 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 2B The source below focuses on the 32-Battalion operations during the Border War which was inseparably linked to the Angolan Civil War. The overall South African strategy centered on blocking a Communist takeover of Namibia. The South African government could not afford an adversary (enemy) state on its borders. Therefore, the South African’s main strategic effort was to maintain control of the Namibian population, by undermining physical and ideological support for insurgent groups (primarily in the form of the South West African People’s Organization, or SWAPO). 32-Battalion was the brainchild of Col. Jan Breytenbach of the SADF. Breytenbach used captured insurgents (rebels) who had been given two options: Food, medical care, pay, and training in return for fighting for the SADF, or life imprisonment for terrorism related crimes. His operational concept was to use these hardened fighters, led by white officers, to wreak utter havoc on SWAPO behind their lines, in the Angolan bush, with the hopes of destroying their will to fight. 32-Battalion would use only captured enemy weapons, wear only enemy uniforms and boots, and even consume only enemy rations while on operations. Breytenbach wanted the unit to be utterly untraceable, and irrationally feared by SWAPO. If possible, 32-Battalion, after an infiltration into enemy held territory, would capture or kill every insurgent, and clear the bodies and encampment, so it would seem like those missing fighters had completely vanished without a trace. The Buffalo Battalion was both able, and unable to accomplish its mission. They accomplished the mission as set forth by Col. Breytenbach, to collapse the enemy psychologically and eventually militarily. But, the apartheid system of government was unsustainable against the assault of the war in Angola, the war at home, and rising public and international outcry. Apartheid collapsed as the war was ending, which can be considered an overall strategic loss for the South African government in power. [From: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/ buffalo-soldiers-in-angola-32-battalion-operations-in-the-south-african- border-warAccessed on 22 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 8 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 2C The source below is an extract that focuses on the role of special forces during the civil war in Angola. Asked by Lusa about the reasons why the South African army decided to become involved in the civil war in Angola, Philip du Preez recalled that at the time the word "communist" was "perceived very, very badly" in South Africa and that the presence of the Soviet and Cuban military near the then South-West Africa was not pleasant. A senior South African army officer who was responsible for the creation of the battalions 31 and 32 in Angola claimed that it was South Africa that, in 1976, advised Jonas Savimbi to start a guerrilla war. "We then sent a message in order to help Savimbi, asking if he wanted us to send personnel to Moxico. He said yes and we sent around 100 people. Before that, recalled the first liaison officer between SADF and UNITA, the South African army had already created 31 Battalion, with the "Bravo Group" (preceded by the "Arrows"), with elements coming mainly from the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA). The "Arrows", initially known as "Auxiliary Body", were a special indigenous force created in 1966 with the support of South Africa, in response to a need by the then International State Defence Police (PIDE / DGS) for the gathering of important political-military information for the Portuguese in Eastern Angola. The South African officer recalled that he was no longer present at the creation of 32-Battalion (or Buffalo Battalion), as he had handed the operation to a "very good, young military man", the then Colonel Jan Breytenbach, a South African Army infantry soldier. Unfortunately, 32-Battalion has come to be seen as a threat to the multiracial democratic regime established in 1994 in South Africa because it was created, trained and used by the "apartheid" regime. It was dissolved in 1994, a few months after the first democratic and multiracial elections in South Africa, imposed by the African National Congress (ANC). [From https://www.plataformamedia.com/en-uk/news/politics/the-south-african-army-convinced-savimbi-to-start- guerrillas-in-angola-10996714.htmslAccessed on 22 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 9 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 2D The source below is a political cartoon which appeared in Die Burger, 17 January 1984. It focuses on Operation Askari, the SADF’s sixth large-scale cross-border operation into Angola and was intended to disrupt SWAPO’s military operations. FAPLA CUBANS SADF SWAPO [From https://samilhistory.com/2015/10/11/sadf-mass-armed-incursions-into-angola-not-an-occupation- theres-a-big-difference/Accessed on 29 July 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 10 (Paper 1) 10791/20 QUESTION 3: HOW DID THE BLACK POWER MOVEMENT SUCCESSFULLY MOBILISE SUPPORT FROM THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITIES IN THE 1960s? SOURCE 3A The source below focuses on Malcom X’s ideological changes in the Civil Rights Movement that shaped the Black Power Movement in the early 1960s. Alongside the Civil Rights Movement, the late 1950s also witnessed the rise of the Nation of Islam (NOI), which advocated a nationalist agenda. The NOI kept its distance from the non- violent groups. Malcolm X came to embody (represent) this second current of the liberation movement, which emphasised the common heritage, identity and destiny of Black people. The Nation of Islam encouraged the Black community to take control of its own institutions, to support Black businesses and to disengage from the political happenings of the nation at large. Critical of the non-violent principles of the mainstream (ordinary) Civil Rights Movement, Malcolm X organised the secular (non-spiritual) Organisation of Afro-American Unity to take the political demands of the growing Black Power Movement into an international arena. For those forces increasingly frustrated with the Civil Rights Movement’s leadership and the overall project of integration into a white-dominated society, Malcolm X offered an uncompromising, internationalist vision and a no-nonsense rhetoric that linked the struggle of Black people with anti-colonial struggles abroad. As such, Malcolm X, along with militant leaders like Robert F. Williams, served as a bridge to a new stage in the Civil Rights Movement, in which the demands for equal democratic rights expanded into a struggle for national liberation. Malcom X aimed for social equality, based first and foremost on the Black community’s control of its own organisations and institutions. Dozens of national groups and hundreds of local organisations took part in what became a full-scale national liberation movement within the United States. The Black Panther Party was the most developed and highest expression of this movement. [From Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. Carmichael, S. and Hamilton, C.,1967, Vintage Book, NewYork] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 11 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 3B The extract below was written by Joe Veale, the spokesperson of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the USA. He reflects on the years when he was a member of the Black Panther Party in 2001, during the celebration of the BPP’s 35 years of existence. In the late 1960s the Black Panther Party flipped the script on the system. Instead of the system getting away with putting people up against the wall and making us assume the position, the BPP led the people to put the whole white racist power structure up against the wall. The Black Panther Party for Self-Defence organised in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, had taken this vanguard (leadership) responsibility during a time when the eruption of the Black Power Movement had sent 100 United States cities up in flames. It was a time when massive street fighting, rebellion, and a revolutionary movement swept through the ghettos, barrios, and college campuses. People were fighting the system and searching for a philosophy to guide this fight. In my opinion, the most important thing that the Black Panther Party (BPP) picked up in this regard was the Little Red Book of Quotations from Mao Zedong. The BPP challenged people to face the reality that the capitalist and imperialist system could not be reformed, that it would take an armed revolution to get rid of it. I remember a poster of a BPP rally that a lot of people had on their walls. It was a picture of clench-fisted Black youth captioned with a quote from Mao that read: “The revolutionary war is a war of the masses. It can only be waged by relying on the masses and mobilizing them.” “The spirit of the people is greater than the man's technology,” was what Huey Newton had said. The Black Panther Party members went about the work of unlocking and directing this revolutionary spirit. The BPP boldly and proudly took responsibility to unite the struggles of people in the United States of America with the struggles of our brothers and sisters around the world to defeat US imperialism. It was felt that Blacks and other oppressed people were inside the belly of a giant octopus that had its tentacles around the world, sucking the blood of people everywhere. For African-Americans to be free from being robbed by the capitalists, from racism, from police brutality, from miseducation and unemployment, from being railroaded to prisons, it would take nothing less than a revolution. [From http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Our_Stories/Chapter2/Carrying_the_Red_Book.html, Accessed on 25 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 12 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 3C This extract was taken from the magazine Oxford American , that pays tribute to one of the six founding members of the Black Panther Party, Elbert Howard, also known as ‘Big Man’. The article was written by John O’Connor on 12 June 2018. It focuses on the role Elbert Howard played in the Black Panther Party’s ‘survival programs’. The Black Panther Party’s (BPP) armed revolution tended to alienate (isolate) them from the masses and was transformed into a community service organisation. The BPP moved into a phase of inter-communalism, because it was not only about the guns and violence. The party rolled out a staggering menu of neighbourhood ‘survival programs’, the idea being to fill in where the government had proven itself miserably incompetent, which was pretty much everywhere. As the party’s policy developer and strategist, Big Man and Chief of Staff David Hilliard became guiding hands, helping conceive, baby and steer the programs into being, from sunup to sundown. The free-breakfast programmes fed twenty thousand school kids a day and became the model for the Department of Agriculture’s own initiative in 1975. Howard also ran work-study classes for black parolees and a free sickle-cell-anaemia testing clinic. There were medical offices and ambulance services in communities where some people had never seen a doctor. Drug and alcohol treatment centres. Liberation schools. Renters’ assistance. Pest control. Legal aid. Everything free and for the people. It was a form of self- defence, they all came together for survival. The guns were a draw for the party at first and no doubt intended to induce some fear in White America but it was wrong to think of the BPP as animated by fear and not negotiating the far more outrageous terrain of kindness, and togetherness, and the opposite of whatever official lie the government was peddling. [From https://www.oxfordamerican.org. Accessed on 25 November 2019.] P.T.O.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 13 (Paper 1) 10791/20 SOURCE 3D The photograph below was published as part of an article written by Teddy Shibaban in January 2017, in the Socialist Alternative, commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Black Panther Party. The photograph below focuses on the free-breakfast program that was introduced by the Black Panther Party as one of their social programmes. SOCIAL ACTION BASED ON BPP’s 10-POINTS In 1968, the BPP in- augurated the first of many community- based programs that would directly meet the needs of people in black communities as outlined in the party’s 10-point program. Panthers Free Breakfast Program [From: https://www.socialist alternative.org.Accessed on 25 November 2019] END

Downloaded from hlayiso.com HISTORY ADDENDUM 14 (Paper 1) 10791/20 Acknowledgments Visual sources and other historical evidence were taken from the following Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles V. Hamilton. 1967. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. New York: vintage Books http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Our_Stories/Chapter2/Carrying_the_Red_Book.html, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.doc.php?flash=true&doc=94 https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct24/doc2.htm/ https://coldwar.unc.edu/files/2018/07/Cuban-Missile-06 https://www.historyonthenet.com/result-of-the-cuban-missile-crisis-2 https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/proxy-wars-during-cold-war-africa https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/ buffalo-soldiers-in-angola-32-battalion-operations-in-the- south-african-border-war https://www.plataformamedia.com/en-uk/news/politics/the-south-african-army-convinced-savimbi- to-start-guerrillas-in-angola-10996714.htmsl https://samilhistory.com/2015/10/11/sadf-mass-armed-incursions-into-angola-not-an- occupation-theres-a-big-difference/ https://www.oxfordamerican.org. https://www.socialist alternative.org.